Today is Thursday, April 24, 2014rss RSS feed

By Dr. T. David Gordon

The Center For Vision & Values

The Center For Vision & Values

Grove City, PA --(Ammoland.com)- President Obama routinely promotes his firearms policies with the adjectives “reasonable” or “sensible,” and he probably believes quite sincerely that his proposals are just that.

Implicit in such adjectives, however, is that those who disagree with him (including, I suppose, the framers of the National Firearms Act of 1934 or the Gun Control Act of 1968) are un-reasonable or non-sensible.

Some of the president’s proposed policies, however, are not evidently “reasonable” or “sensible.”

Consider, for instance, the proposals to limit firearms magazines to 10 rounds. Here, there are at least three considerations that weaken the president’s claim that his proposals are “reasonable.”

First, why the magic number 10? Who was it that determined that nine rounds are too few, 11 are too many, and 10 are just right? Would 11 or 12 rounds be unreasonable? Was the number not chosen for the sake of mere political expediency? Surely the president knew that if he had chosen “zero” as the magic number, the legislative prospects would have also been zero But why is a 10-round magazine “reasonable,” whereas a 12-, 15-, or 20-round magazine unreasonable?

Second, does the president not know that even a moderately skilled shooter can change magazines so quickly that it makes little practical difference? Magazines for the AR-15 series (one of the specific weapons targeted by the Obama administration) can be exchanged extremely quickly; in one particular YouTube video, the entire video takes 12 seconds, and there are several “blank” seconds before and after the exchange, as an individual fires seven rounds from three different magazines in about seven seconds. Any man standing in front of this shooter would neither care nor notice whether he was shot an equal number of times in seven seconds from one “unreasonable” magazine or from three “reasonable” ones.

Further, these magazines can easily be attached to one another in tandem; many shooters pair them this way. When one is emptied, it is removed and the other, tandem magazine, is quickly inserted, in less than a second or two. In a mass shooting, the brief time taken to change magazines is of no practical consequence; the action can be done without removing the firearm from the shoulder, and without losing one’s sight-picture. It is not “reasonable” or “sensible” to think that two 10-round magazines are less lethal than a single 20-round magazine.

Third, what is considered “reasonable” is situation-specific. If a sheep farmer in western Pennsylvania is protecting his flock from feral dogs, ( and now wolves ), or coyotes, it is much more convenient to have a single, large-capacity magazine in his rifle than to carry several additional magazines that he must keep with him at all times. Why would it not be “sensible” or “reasonable” for him to use a large-capacity magazine to drive off or kill such predators? If there were a dozen wolves, would it be “sensible” to shoot 10 of them, and let the other two kill his sheep?

Similarly, if the sheep farmer’s brother were defending his family against looters, would it be “unreasonable” to have a large-capacity magazine inserted in his weapon? Would it be “sensible” to defend his home and family against the first 10 looters (assuming unreasonably perfect accuracy with each round) and to permit the next 20 looters to overrun the place? Why is it un-reasonable to defend one’s home against all of the looters? Suppose it were only three looters? Would 10 rounds be sufficient? Firearm wounds are not often or immediately fatal; many soldiers have survived multiple gunshot wounds. The survivors of the Virginia Tech tragedy averaged over two-and-a-half wounds each. Presumably, the non-survivors were wounded even more frequently. If we assume even a ballpark estimate that it takes three or more hits (and we cannot “reasonably” assume that shooters never miss) to stop an assailant, is it “reasonable” to permit people to defend themselves effectively from only two or three assailants? And is it “unreasonable” to permit them to defend themselves against three or more?

A “reasonable” or “sensible” person may assume two realities—of which television, movies, and possibly the president of the United States are completely unaware: that shooters do not hit their intended targets 100 percent of the time, and that it normally takes multiple gunshot wounds to stop or even slow down an assailant (whether animal or human). On the basis of these two realities, the same “reasonable” individual would realize that, effectively, a 10-round magazine permits the individual to defend himself against, at most, two assailants, whether they be feral dogs, wolves, coyotes, or looters.

Why is it “reasonable” to defend oneself against two such assailants, and “unreasonable” to defend oneself against more than two?

Editor’s note: This is Part I in a five-part series on the topic of firearms. See Parts IIIIIIIV, and V here:

— Dr. T. David Gordon is a professor of religion at Grove City College and a contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values.

© 2013 by The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. The views & opinions expressed herein may, but do not necessarily, reflect the views of Grove City College.

Ammoland Click to read AmmoLand FTC Marital Disclosures Distributed to you by - AmmoLand.com – The Shooting Sports News source.
  • 3 User comments to “Reasonable or Sensible Firearms Policies? – Firearms Discussion (Part V)”

    1. DaveGinOly on January 30, 2013 at 11:30 PM said:

      As one online wag put it, “Do the first ten rounds not hurt?”

      One of the shooters at Columbine carried a pistol-caliber “assault rifle,” less powerful than a typical AR, and was equipped with 10 round magazines, within the magazine limit recently proposed. However, the shooter carried 13 such magazines, demonstrating that both weapon type and magazine capacity are irrelevant; Columbine proves that a mass shooting can be conducted in the face of regulations such as those now under consideration.

    2. The argument that sets up multiple predators attacking or multiple criminals seems like reaching for a sort of zombie attack scenario.
      I wish those who want to argue against gun control would ever acknowledge that there is a need to do something. Loughner or Holmes or Lanza are more likely to be the sort of people who start shooting and they are not likely to be experts, but peoria who are suicidal or psychotic or both.
      The problem is that practical solutions can never come from denial that there is a problem and negativity towards any ideas anyone might put forward. It is kind of like not voting. When your vote is missing from the count, it is really a vote for the other side.

    3. Robert Myles on January 31, 2013 at 5:38 PM said:

      The size of the magazine is an arbitrary number and truly meaningless. Blamiing the Gun or the Magazine size that it takes is like blaming a certain type color and number of cylinders i the engine of a specific car for more accident’s, for more drunk driving arrest’s or more kidnapping’s. The need here is in Education and mental health isues. Guns do not load aim and fire themselves, if they did then I would have been massacred year’s ago by mine. There is a major health risis in this country and it is in the feild of mental health. Way too many drugs are prescribed to people to make them feel ‘good’ or be ‘more happy’, more attentive in class, more behaved etc etc. If you were to go into a classroom today you would truly wonder what the heck the teacher’s are actually teaching. What was 4th grade level is now about 7th or 8th. Why? because the calibre of teacher’s is not what it used to be. the kids get fidgety with boring classes and many who teach just plain are not quilified for the job. Sure they have the paper on the wall that says “I R A Teacher” but that doesn’t mean they can teach. In the name of “no child left behind we have dumbed down eduction to the point that most who try to attend college find they are ill prepared for it. Our places of “higher learning are dominated with the liberal think leftist’s who admire Saul Alinsky,Karl Marx and other socialistic leaders. When we have people in the whitehouse that openly say they admire Mao then we do indeed have a problem. the Second Amendment was not to protect deer hunting it was and is to protect the people from a tyrannical government. Our Founder’s fought such to bring freedom and a new form of government into the world. A Constitutional Republic of,by and for the people. That ideal has been bastardized in washington and all our state capital’s. The people are supposed to be served by our legislator’s that is not the way it is today. We need to return our government to the people and make our public servants just that as intended in the Constitution.

    Leave a Comment

    • Sign up Ammoland for your Inbox

      Daily Digest

      Monthly Newsletter

    • Recent Comments

      • Janek: And the people who say this stuff either vote or are already holding political office themselves!
      • MontieR: Why not follow the constitution and tell these power mad lunatics “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
      • Pasquale: If $1400.oo for a Colt is too pricey…this is a good choice. Very Popular in ‘SASS/Coyboy’...
      • Inky mark: Canada is an urban society, gun use learned from movies deemed dangerous and exploited by politics,...
      • Ken: I am 54 with a total of 28 years government service, I cannot tell you how badly I am looking forward to...
    • maximum
      Login with Facebook: Log In
      Powered by Sociable!
    • Facebook Activity

    • Google+ Direct Connect

    Copyright 2014 AmmoLand.com Shooting Sports News | Sitemap | Μολὼν λαβέ

    Sign up for the Ammoland Daily Digest

    * indicates required
    Daily Digest is a daily recap of Firearms industry news, 2nd Amendment politics , and product articles delivered to the inbox. Stay informed to keep your Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
    Yes, I want the Monthly email newsletter subscription to Ammoland so I can get a single newsletter once a month on the hot new products from the Firearms Industry!
    9179408
    9693408