During congressional testimony on Wednesday, Mark Kelly, husband of Tuscon shooting victim Gabrielle Giffords, spoke of the 33-round magazine that Jared Loughner used to inflict severe injury and death upon 20 human beings. Kelly said, “He unloaded the contents of that magazine in 15 seconds – The first bullet went into Gabby’s head. Bullet No. 13 went into a 9-year-old girl.” That 9-year old girl was Christina Taylor Green, who was the youngest victim of the Tuscon shooting.
The Oregonian — When Loughner tried to reload his Glock 9mm with another 33-round magazine, he dropped it and was promptly tackled by the few bystanders left standing.
If Loughner hadn’t had access to a high-capacity magazine, and had fumbled instead with 10-round magazines, Kelly argued, “Christina Taylor Green would be alive today.”
During the same Senate committee hearing, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said, “We hear that no one needs to carry larger magazines than those that hunters used to shoot deers, but an attacking criminal, unlike a deer, shoots back.”
So on one hand, there’s an argument for magazine capacity limits to reduce potential carnage. On the other hand, there’s an argument for not limiting magazine size because it might take dozens of bullets to bring down an “attacking criminal.”
And that brings me to my perverse thought about objections to banning high-capacity magazines — Could it be possible that those who support high-capacity magazines do so because it reduces the chances of being taken out during a reload?
Hear me out. – Nobody on the gun “rights” advocacy side of the argument believes they are a “bad guy”, as the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre puts it. So from their perspective, if they find it necessary to discharge their firearm, they earnestly believe they are in the right. They believe their response of force is justified. Therefore, could it really be possible that they don’t want a limit on magazine capacity because they don’t want to be taken out like Loughner was taken out? — Well, at least not until they can empty 20 or 30 rounds that is.
Yes, a perverse thought indeed. Is there any truth to it? I hope not, but when it comes to these gun rights absolutists like Wayne LaPierre, I agree with the testimony of Baltimore Police Chief James Johnson when he said, “I find it to be scary, creepy, and simply just not based on logic. — Frankly, I can’t relate to that kind of thinking.”