Robert Levy on the 2A
His comments on the 2A and present gun control proposals are in the National Law Journal.
One pet peeve, based on something I've seen other 2A supporters do as well (Volokh). Levy notes that the purported rationale for limiting magazine capacity is that it will provide an opportunity to subdue attackers. 2A advocates then say, it will have little impact because magazines can be changed quickly. Levy then states that the ability to quickly change magazines undermines 2A supporters' argument for non-restricted magazine capacity, because lawful gun users also can change magazines quickly. I call BS.
When a mass publich shooter acts, the shooter chooses the time, place, and armament (frequently multiple guns). The shooting typically takes place without any armed opposition. The shooter is shooting fish in a barrel. The estimates I have seen indicate that the average time between shots is 6-10 seconds in a mass public shooting. Taking 2-3 seconds to change a magazine under these circumstances poses no real risk to the mass public shooter.
On the other hand, in the typical self-defense shooting, the defender is armed with a compromise weapon, in a surprise situation, at a time and place chosen by another. The estimates I've seen suggest that the average length of active shooting in these encounters is less than 10 seconds (i.e., the same amount of time the mass public shooter has to take each shot). I believe that the vast majority of gun owners would have a difficult time changing a magazine in 2 seconds in this type of situation (adrenaline dump, frantically running for cover, etc.). Furthermore, when the entire encounter lasts 6 seconds (or 8 or 10), being out of the action for 2 seconds is a HUGE disadvantage. Newhall? Miami?
The two situations are not at all similar. Stop conceding that they are.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 12, 2013 01:48 PM
Re Anonymous at 1:48; So the question of magazine size is nuanced and subtle in its application of facts to analysis and is sensitive to whether it is a bad guy or good guy doing the mag change.
Once again we find that the party of nuance chooses the completely un-nuanced position in this matter (like everything else it does).
Posted by: Windhy Wilson at February 13, 2013 12:16 PM
Windhy, I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make. I assume that I am the "party of nuance." My conclusion was, don't concede that bad guys' need for magazines is directly comparable to good guys' need. That's hardly an un-nuanced position. Furthermore, I'm not attacking Levy. Afterall, the guy orchestrated Heller and McDonald. He's rightly revered by gunnies in the know. Finally, I don't believe the magazine issue really is all that nuanced. More ammunition is always a good thing in a self-defense situation. It's the reason police departments switched away from revolvers (in some cases after being sued by the officers' union). Moreover, magazine restrictions disparately impact people who can only shoot smaller calibers. 10 rounds of .25 are not the same things as 10 rounds of .45.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 13, 2013 12:34 PM
It's best to take part in a contest for one of the very best blogs on the web. I will recommend this web-site!
Posted by: Sadoincabon at February 21, 2013 01:33 AM