Friday, April 05, 2013


Magical Thinking

Last week Rep. Diane DeGette, said this to someone who asked how limiting the size of magazines will make anyone safer because of the millions of normal sized box magazines already in circulation?

I will tell you these are ammunition -- bullets -- so the people who have those now they are going to shoot them, and so if you ban -- if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available.

She took some criticism for that gun idiocy.

Here is the response to that criticism from my congresswoman, in her latest opinion piece in the Denver Post. She whines. But let's examine her statements to see if they contain any logic.

As I have learned in two decades of work on gun violence prevention issues, the gun lobby takes every opportunity to intimidate, and attempt to silence, anyone who stands up to fight to make our families safer.
Ah, so she says something particularly stupid about gun magazines and we point that out and she accuses us (who are not lobbyist) of trying to intimidate and silence her. Hmm? Well, she's having her thoughts published in the states biggest newspaper so I guess we failed to intimidate and silence her. Way to fight your way through, Diane! What a brave heroine! Oh and we people who actually know about guns and what prevents gun violence, we have to disagree that she has done anything to prevent gun violence. Not a thing. Hope she doesn't find that criticism too intimidating.
If a high-capacity magazine ban is put in place, there would be a reduction of magazines in circulation, simply because they would no longer be available for lawful purchase.
Ah, I see, if a law bans an item, it goes away. Of course, during Prohibition there was no more alcohol; the illegal drug ban has been a complete success and there are no more illegal drugs out there. It's just that simple. I think that all she seeks to do is turn gun owners, who are using completely legal and ordinary magazines, into criminals. Wow, evil crazy people kill people and the law abiding can't buy or sell normal sized box magazines anymore. What a brilliant idea. Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself. She says:
While those who currently have high-capacity magazines would be able to keep them and reuse them if they wished, they would not be able to purchase new high-capacity magazines or transfer them to others. The availability of these assault magazines to criminals and the mentally ill would thus be greatly reduced over time.
OK, so there are tens of millions box magazines out there that hold more than 7, 10 or 15 cartridges and we who own them can keep them. However, she thinks the criminalization she want to create will shrink that huge inventory. How? How will it keep criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining them? The evil psychopath in Connecticut killed his mom and stole her weapons and normal sized magazines. The law that bans something only prevents the law abiding from owning the thing banned. The criminals and the mentally ill don't care--don't obey the law. Does she not know that? And what is the shelf life of a metal or plastic box magazine. A hundred years? Two hundred? A thousand? Despite the particularly stupid thing she said earlier this week, time and normal activity does not use them up. Banning new manufacture and sale will not dent the millions out there, will not prevent ownership by criminals and the mentally ill. It's magical thinking to believe it will.

After spending two paragraphs saying look over there, the congresswoman gets to her especially non-logical thinking.

A high-capacity magazine ban will not stop an individual intent upon doing harm, but would give those victims in their sights a fighting chance when the gunman has to stop and reload.

Think long and hard about her first clause. Read it again. OK. So she perseveres in thinking that in the two to five seconds it takes to change out a magazine, the unarmed victim has a "fighting chance" Really? So seven, ten, fifteen victims are perfectly OK, but giving in theory 2 to 5 seconds between shots to the victims beyond that number, whatever it is, is in her mind, "taking the 'mass' out of 'mass shooting.' " What? First you have to believe the next evil psychopath will not be able to get one of the millions of normal sized magazine. Very doubtful. And then you have to believe that in the two to five seconds it takes to change out a magazine, the intended victims actually have any additional chance to get away or overwhelm the armed psychopath. Again, extremely doubtful. What if he has two guns (like the evil psychopaths lately did have)? If you rush the guy, he shoots you with the other gun and then keeps the other intended victims covered as he continues to change out the magazine. If you run away, the guy shoots you with the other gun and then keeps the other intended victims covered as he continues to change out the magazine on his one empty gun.

As someone who has a working knowledge how quickly a magazine is dropped and a new one inserted and a new round seated, I know the idea Ms. DeGette has that making an armed psychopath change magazines, if he wants to shoot more than seven, ten or fifteen people, gives the super-numeric, intended victims a "fighting chance" is fantasy. It is idiocy clothed in bathos. It is pathetic.

While the gun lobby may utilize smear tactics this week to make the focus about me, this debate is not about a misspoken turn of phrase.

Does she mean smearing her was pointing out that she said something particularly stupid about the box magazines she seeks to ban? Is rightfully criticizing stupid statements now smearing? Hmmm? She admitted that what she said was "inartfully stated" perhaps or "misspoken", but now people who said it was certainly inartful and misspoken are not only trying to intimidate and silence her, now they are smearing her. What a whiner. And all she wants to do is protect the lives of children (at least the 8th, 11th or 16th in a group) by pushing a completely useless and certainly unconstitutional law. So we who disagree with the method she chooses are no doubt in favor for more dead children. Lefty logic at its finest.

And I haven't even mentioned her idiot, smug and deadly advice not to defend yourself but wait the 14 plus minutes it takes the police in Denver, on average, to get to you in a life threatening situation. What could happen in 14 minutes? More lefty logic, if that word actually applies.


Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?