30 Rounds of PSH

The Washington Post is busy lamenting freedom in the US, and apparently Sweden.

These magazines too often find their way into the hands of deranged individuals, transforming them into efficient killing machines.

Do they also transform our police into efficient killing machines? If their only purpose is predation, why do the police need them? The media never wants to answer this question. I’ll make them a deal, write up a ban that applies to the police too, and get all major police groups behind it, I’ll get behind it too. I’m waiting, but not holding my breath.

6 thoughts on “30 Rounds of PSH”

  1. Here’s one thing I’ve always wondered about WRT exempting law enforcement from restrictions on magazine capacity:

    Why do police, who generally work in teams of two or more (with radio comms to call for additional backup), need larger magazines than free citizens, who can’t count on backup in a self-defense situation?

    To put this in perspective, assuming that everyone in this comparison carries a Glock 17, we see the following:

    A two-man police partner team can fire 36 ready rounds of 9mm ammo in their two sidearms before reloading, assuming that the police are using standard 17-round magazines (17 rounds in the magazine, plus one in the chamber).

    Meanwhile, under the often-floated idea of making it illegal for free citizens to own magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds, a free citizen would need to conduct three magazine changes (10 rounds per magazine, plus a round already in the chamber) to fire as many rounds in self-defense as the above-mentioned police partner team can manage without a single magazine change.

    In the meantime, criminals will likely find a way to obtain magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds, “by hook or by crook.” Anyone who believes otherwise also believes in horses that can stab people.

    So (and I know I’m preaching to the choir here), magazine capacity restrictions will only affect those folks who ought not have their right to self-defense limited by an arbitrary limit on magazine capacity, while empowering those who will ignore said limits.

  2. Oops! I should have said that a two-man police partner team could fire 35 rounds (17 times 2, plus 1 in the chamber).

    The principle still holds true.

  3. Markie Marxist sez: “We talk about the need to ban 30-round magazines, but then we propose laws to ban anything over 10-rounds. We Marxists would make great used car salesmen, wouldn’t we? We really know how to pull a fast one, don’t we? Ha! Ha!”

  4. “I’ll make them a deal, write up a ban that applies to the police too, and get all major police groups behind it, I’ll get behind it too. “

    No way. Not ever.

    Someday, somewhere, someone is going to come up with a replacement for modern handguns and rifles. The government is going to promptly make it illegal for us “mundanes” to own. At that point they will have no need to exempt their enforcers.

    Never, never, never agree with them about the least bit of disarming. By doing so you concede the principal.

  5. It’s a bit tongue and cheek, Bob. I’m conceding something in exchange for something I know they’ll never agree to. The politics of that situation doesn’t work out, and they know it.

Comments are closed.