Running Out the Glock
This morning's New York Post carries an editorial proposing that police departments "stop buying Glock sidearms until the company stops general sales of 30-round magazines -- like the one used in the Tucson massacre." In this debate I speak as a firm Second Amendment supporter who, however, does not himself own a gun or have any desire to have one, notwithstanding that my dad was an FBI agent so I grew up with handguns in the house and no one thought them a big deal.
I have grave doubts about the kind of ban and boycotts proposed but am not well versed in the more tailored arguments about, say, ammunition sales. Grover Norquist once commented to me that liberals talk about guns so they don't have to talk about crime. I'm sure the Ricochet community has many more gun owners and 2nd Amendment champions, and I'd like to hear their take specifically on this move to regulate these kind of magazines -- especially because I think we're going to hear many more calls for this sort of regulation and/or boycotts.
- Comment (48)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Running Out the Glock
Criminal Control, not Gun Control.
The massacre in Tuscon was not grevious because a pixilated yoyo had a 30 round magazine. It happened because the proper process of law enforcement was not permitted to take place.
There is evidence that the shooter had multiple encounters with the Pima Co. sheriff''s office over the years. Now every normal person who encountered him could easily see that he was a coiled spring just waiting to snap. Yet somehow the Pima County Sheriff's office missed this in their multiple encounters with the fellow.
The fact that his mommy was a Pima County Board of Supervisors Employee couldn't have had any impact on this fellow having a nice clean record when he went to purchase a firearm that would have been denied to anyone who's parent didn't work for the county could it?
If a tool is broke, Fix It.
If a tool is not used, it isn't broken, it's unused.
Re: Running Out the Glock
I agree with that. But I'm curious about the ammunition argument, which I hadn't heard before, about high-capacity magazines. As a practical matter, I have my doubts that limiting sales to police will prevent them from getting out to the public. I also have my doubt that police who are happy with high-quality weapons are going to give them up because the manufacturer sells ammunition to civilians. But I suspect this is going to be popular among our politicoes, because strictly speaking it's not a ban on gun ownership...
Sep '10
Re: Running Out the Glock
Bill, you're right this idea will be popular with politicians - take Rep. Peter King for example. And Glock could discontinue the 30 round magazine tomorrow, but that wouldn't stop someone else for making one compatible with a Glock. It would also create a black market for high capacity magazines.
Does anyone really think a high capacity magazine kills more people? A highly trained shooter can swap out standard magazines pretty quickly. Or just carry two guns.
Someone intent on death and destruction will find any way possible to accomplish their objective. It's pretty obvious this type of individual isn't concerned about the law.
May '10
Re: Running Out the Glock
I own two handguns: a .22 revolver that I've had for years and a .45 semiautomatic I bought shortly after Mr. Obama's inauguration (what, me paranoid?).
I'm a big 2nd Amendment guy - an armed citizenry checks government power and we have a sovereign right to defend our persons and property.
That said, I can't for myself see a need to have a 30-round magazine for my pistol but I'm not too concerned if someone else wants one. My car has a 4 cylinder engine, my neighbor has a V8. What concerns me is that both of us drive safely.
Banning things like these magazines means that only people who abide by the laws will respect the ban. Those inclined to crime will commit crimes regardless of the laws.
It's the old NRA line, but it's true: stop passing more restrictive laws - instead prosecute vigorously those who break the ones already on the books.
Jun '10
Re: Running Out the Glock
Jared Loughner could've borrowed his dad's car, and used that to kill, or injure, two dozen people standing on the corner waiting for a bus. I guess the real shock in this case, that always "requires new legislation," is that a nutcase-nobody was able to assault very important people. That's what makes it so serious--so serious that new legislation is needed--and so endlessly newsworthy.
Nov '10
Re: Running Out the Glock
At least some, maybe most, of the magazines holding more than the normal 15 rounds contained by the ones that come with the pistol are made by third parties, not Glock. And, if Glock quit selling them, I am certain that even more would be made by others.
For those who want to know more about the Model 19, I recommend this article by Peter G. Kokalis, one of America's foremost gun writers: http://www.remtek.com/arms/glock/model/9/19/.
May '10
Re: Running Out the Glock
The assumption is that discouraging the further distribution of extended magazines will prevent criminal acquisition. This is, to say the least, a dubious claim. But its not a coercive policy, so I have no philosophical objections to it. Boycotts are not prohibitions.
Oct '10
Re: Running Out the Glock
Speaking as someone who has taken a Glock 19 and a 33 round magazine to the gun range, I'll say that anything that helps reduce the number of times I have to re-load magazines helps me use my range time more efficiently & effectively.
The argument against them seems to boil down to this: 1) the potential devastation that can be wrought with 33 rounds is considerably more than with 15 rounds. 2) That additional potential damage is unacceptable. Therefore we must ban 33 round magazines.
Of course points 1 & 2 are true as far as it goes but does that mean that the potential damage of 15 (or 17 or 19) rounds is "acceptable" to them? Not likely. It then seems reasonable to assume that prohibitionists will say that 15 rounds can do more potential damage than, say, 7 rounds and just keep chipping away. If you accept their rationale, then it's not long before you reach the conclusion that 0 bullets do far less damage than 1 bullet and now we're looking at banning or severly restricting gun ownership.
May '10
Re: Running Out the Glock
Legislators do one thing-- make new legislation. They have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. Is there a problem? Let's legislate it away.
It takes maturity and humility to realize that you may not be able to solve a problem with the tools at hand, and call in the professionals who do. And humility is obviously a commodity in short supply in the political class.
May '10
Re: Running Out the Glock
Boycotting Glock will do no good, because other companies will continue to make large capacity magazines that fit Glock guns.
But magazine restrictions are a lousy idea anyway. The argument goes that the only reason to have a large capacity magazine is to shoot a lot of people. That's just flat wrong. I have a carry permit and read about the defensive use of handguns a fair amount. The general view is that you can never have too much ammunition, not so you can shoot a lot of people, but because you don't know how long the gunfight may last (even if the cops arrive in a few minutes, that's an eternity when bullets are flying), and you're definitely going to miss a lot.
And, as with most gun regulations, criminals are much less likely to be thwarted than law-abiding citizens.
Re: Running Out the Glock
I see it's not just NYC. Now there's a move in Congress. http://www.kcbd.com/Global/story.asp?S=13839866
Jul '10
Re: Running Out the Glock
Part of the problem comes from the majority of the public getting their Firearms Knowledge from Hollywood. This causes people to think that shooters can do things that they, quite simply, cannot. (On a writers forum I was getting so tired of egregious errors by writers that I wrote a Primer for writers so they could get some things at least close to accurate.)
Quite simply, an armed member of the crowd could have stopped the shooting before he ever finished with his first magazine. But because this was a basically liberal crowd, the only armed citizen was inside the store and had to cover some distance before he was in a position to stop this idiot.
My own personal choice of weapon for carry is my Ruger Security Six .357 Magnum. I don't buy my Ammunition, I reload it. I would never buy a 30 round magazine for any of my autoloaders, but I cannot see any issue with them existing.
When I took a Statistics class I remember the Teacher saying;
"Once is an occurance
Twice is an anomoly
Three or more times is a trend."
Oou real problem is that for politicians, once is an epidemic!
Aug '10
Re: Running Out the Glock
I think the idea of someone in an armed society being capable of dropping the shooter after 2-3 shots is a good deal more effective that worrying about how many shots in his magazine. A well trained shooter can change magazines faster than Helen Mirren in Red, so bringing an extra 15 round mag is the same as a 30 round magazine. That a 62 yr old woman was there to grab the next one before he reloaded was the milagro of the moment.
They just want to outlaw something. They think their job is making new laws, we need to remind them it's about spending our money, as there are way too many laws already.
It's sort like trying to legislate the sharpness of a knife.
Jun '10
Re: Running Out the Glock
It's a logically inconsistent, feel-good measure put forth by people with no knowledge of firearms and no capacity for reasoned, measured thought. I expect that from Congress, but the Post should know better; they have a bottom line to meet.
Two things: 1.) These magazines are exceptionally rare, to begin with. I'm from Georgia and Oklahoma, been stationed all over the place, and I've only ever seen that particular magazine exactly once. They're a pain to load, they stick out of the pistol about a foot, they tend to have serious feeding problems, and they're heavy as all get-out. Much easier to carry two or three magazines.
Which brings us to point two: 2.) In about an hour I can teach anyone, regardless of prior firearms knowledge or experience, to fire all rounds and reload in a fast and expeditious manner. That doesn't say anything about my teaching ability, it's just that easy. The number of rounds in the magazine have absolutely nothing to do with lethality or damage potential.
Sep '10
Re: Running Out the Glock
Not job X had a 30 round clip and wounded or killed 12 people therefore we need to ban 30 round clips simply is not a valid argument. Should the capacity of clips be limited? What should the limit be? I don’t have enough knowledge about the subject to say. And I have reason to believe most other people don’t either.
Nov '10
Re: Running Out the Glock
Bill,
I am as you. A strong supporter of the 2nd amendment and yet do not own a gun and am never likely to own one.
The old adage applies here: "Outlaw guns (or 30 round clips) and only outlaws will have guns (or 30 round clips). Regulation only handicaps the law-abiding. Scofflaws view it as opportunity.
Dec '10
Re: Running Out the Glock
It's entirely possible that the high capacity magazine saved a few lives. Unless he was very practiced at firing the weapon with that configuration he probably was less accurate than he would have been firing it in a more standard set up with multiple magazines. Take any hand tool and affix some extra weight to it and see if your use of it is impaired.
Jun '10
Re: Running Out the Glock
The 2nd Amendment is the only constitutional right about which we have these kind of arguments. It makes as much sense as saying that the NYT rotopresses should be limited to 25,000 sheets per minute. "They have the right to a free press, but we want to limit the amount of paper that they can run through those presses."
I personally have .223 high-capacity magazines (taped end to end for rapid reload, loaded 5/2 ball/tracer) because I sometimes sail to places where the possibility of a fire fight with pirates is real and there is no police or naval protection.
Re: Running Out the Glock
I am glad to see my doubts confirmed.
My father used to tell me how terrified were the bank tellers he met who had had a gun put in their faces. He always thought that rather than banning or restricting guns, anyone who used a gun in the course of a crime should have extra years added on to their sentence. I wonder how many of those pushing for the restrictions would be for that.
Few I suspect, because it is a punishment aimed at criminals.
Sep '10
Re: Running Out the Glock
This proposed ban is a feel good attempt at governance that is not worthy to be called governance.
I am reminded of the scene in "Blazing Saddles" where everyone starts saying "harrumph" when the governor demands action for the citizens of Rock Ridge.
I think no sane person believes that banning 30 round clips will have any measurable effect on murder rates or gun shot wounds or anything like that. It is not enough to not have a reason not to pass a law.