I'm not a big news reader, but you'd have to have been living in a bomb shelter for the past two weeks to be oblivious to the attempted assassination that happened in Arizona on January 8. To bring the bomb shelter inhabitants up to speed, 6 people were killed in Arizona during an attempted murder of congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. She was shot in the head but is recovering.
This was a very unfortunate event and by no means should be taken lightly. However, like all tragedies, it has brought on a new wave of paranoia that America frankly didn't need. Americans are seriously considering restricting the number of rounds a firearm can house at a given time and doing away with high capacity magazines. Crash course for those who don't know jack about firearms, (which is fine, I completely respect those who are uncomfortable with them) a "high capacity magazine" can hold more than 10 rounds, AKA bullets. As a proud card carrying member of well educated gun owners, this both ticks me off and confuses me. It makes no sense to me that the government thinks that restricting the amount of rounds in a magazine will solve this problem. Psychos like this bloke, Jared Loughner, will just carry twice the number of loaded magazines. If someone thinks they have a point to prove and are willing to resort to gunfire to do it, the repealing of the second amendment will not stop them. This is actually opening up another can of worms for an entirely new set of problems.
Try finding a gun bigger than a set of playing cards that comes with factory magazines that aren't high capacity. My gun is a pretty standard carry, it can do damage while being small and compact. The magazines that came with it both have a higher capacity than 10. I'm sure they will have some type of "grandfather" clause for people like me who already have these "extra" dangerous firearms, but still... going forward, when the day comes to replace my trusty handgun, do I want to place the difference between a body bag and walking away in 10 rounds or less? Which brings me to my second point...
As a women who spends a good majority of her nights home alone, or with a 5 year old child in the house, security is a important to me. I have some of the best locks money can buy, spotlights on just about every corner of my house, a doberman pinscher and plenty of firearms. This is not overkill, it is a necessity. It may look like I live in beaver-cleaver-ville, but we've had more than our share of home break ins and security scares out here in BFE. God help the man who picks my door to break down, because if it comes down to him or me, you can bet my happy ass is walking out shaken but alive. I have serious problems with the government telling me I have 10 rounds or less to save said happy ass. Sure, I can just follow my own thoughts about the psychos and keep several magazines loaded and ready to go. But put in that kind of a hectic situation, no amount of practice will prepare me for dropping an empty magazine and loading a fresh one. There just won't be time. I'm not the best shot in the world but I can hold my own and I am well rehearsed, but add the adrenaline, fear, anger and a moving target, I won't shoot so well. I've accepted this fact and compensated by being as prepared as possible. In 10 rounds or less, I'm confident I could take down one intruder. But more than one? My odds go down.
So my overall opinion on this is simple- this is not a very good idea. Will it stop people from using guns to make their point? Nope. Will it put me in an even worse position than I already am if placed in a situation to exercise deadly force? Absolutely. I just don't see how the benefits to this outweigh the negatives. This country was founded on beliefs that Americans should have the right to bear arms. Sure, times have changed since then. We aren't as responsible for our own security as we were when the Constitution was written. But we still hold that constitutional right and it might just be me, but that right helps me sleep a tad better at night.
No comments:
Post a Comment