For one thing, defensive firearms are meant to be “equalizers,” force multipliers that can allow one good person to defend against multiple evil people. To allow one good person to defend against a single evil person so much stronger and/or bigger and/or more violent than he or she, that the attacker’s potentially lethal assault can be stopped. History shows that it often takes many gunshots to stop even a single determined aggressor. Most police officers have seen the famous autopsy photo in the cops-only text book “Street Survival” of the armed robber who soaked up 33 police 9mm bullets before he stopped trying to kill the officers. Consider Lance Thomas, the Los Angeles area watch shop owner who was in many shootouts with multiple gang bangers who tried to rob and murder him. He shot several of them, and discovered that it took so many hits to stop them that he placed multiple loaded handguns every few feet along his workbench. That’s not possible in a home, or when lawfully carrying concealed on the street: a semiautomatic pistol with a substantial cartridge capacity makes much more sense for that defensive application.
Massad Ayoob – Why Good People Need Semiautomatic Firearms and “High Capacity” Magazines
December 29th, 2012
[First it’s worth reading the whole thing. My usual response currently about why do you “need” currently is, “It’s a bill of rights not a bill of needs.” Massad does a fantastic job of destroying their “need” argument. As Massad points out: If semiautomatic rifles and pistols with high-capacity magazines are so ineffective for defense, why do police carry them? If all they can do is aid in criminal activity, why are the police allowed access?
Our opponents will admit a gun in the right hands is a net positive. They will not argue to disarm representatives of the state. So how does taking a firearm from an innocent law-abiding citizen, the right hands, fix the negative of criminals gaining possession.
Ultimately gun control has nothing to do with crime and everything to do with control. Crime has been decreasing even with an increase in firearms ownership in America. There is no causation despite what they claim. Never mind that the numbers say this is quite unlikely to occur. That isn’t to say it isn’t a tragedy, it’s just not worth throwing freedom and liberty away for ineffective measures to try to stop a statistically unlikely event.
So in the end, why would anyone want to limit access to that effective equalizer? -B]
TMM is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms.
Many know his private name and information however due to the current political climate, many are distancing themselves due to the abandonment of Due Process.
It doesn’t… But that will not stop them from continuing to try to ‘ban’ weapons… never mind the criminals… sigh
I had a discussion with two Canadians the weekend after the movie theater shootings. They asked why a person needed more then 10 rounds. I said cops think they need more than ten. The Canadian said but cops are more likely to face danger. I then replied, “shouldnt my wife be able to defend herself too, or is my wife’s life worth less than a cop just because a cop is statistically more likely to face danger?”
When was the last time a lunatic went on a shooting spree in a police station? A gun range? The two places the Federal Government have declared “safe zones”, both schools and post offices, are synonymous with mass shootings. The morons in Congress are incapable of learning from their mistakes. Drop out rates have soared and academic levels have plummeted since Congress started funding the NEA backed teachers and their school curricula but the answer is always “MORE MONEY”! Funny how less money worked so well 50 years ago. So in the face of their failed “safe zones” policy they want to make more free fire zones with the law abiding citizens the targets. Sorry Barry, not at my house!
Ayoob’s title has me thinking; How many churches are having to justify themselves? “Do we really need this particular church?” Or “Do we really need this particular newspaper?”
What we’re trying to answer is; “Do we really need liberty?”
“Do human rights really need protecting?”
I am not really comfortable with this conversation. Our rights are being questioned, and we’re talking about needs as though the right depends on the need (which mneans it isn’t a right at all). I like the article, as far as it goes, but you see my point. Ayoob has fallen for the premise.
As I consistently say, “It’s a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.” Though I must say it is nice to have something to toss back at them.
Here’s what I posted in comment to the Ayoob article;
“I like the post, as far as it goes, but with all due respect, Sir, we have a Bill of Rights. It is not a Bill of Needs. Wrong premise.
We do not have to justify our choices in keeping and bearing arms, so let’s not play along when our rights are questioned.
The ideal behind the second amendment is that power is vested in the people, as individuals, and not in government. It is about power balance. The millisecond that someone in government starts to question our rights, they are out of line and need to be called on it. They are advocating criminal behavior.
Reference; 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242”
I know; the common response would be something like; “But we have to appeal to those on the fence. We have to win them over, and so we can’t be sounding like crazies…” and so on. OK; a couple of points on that. 1) When does the left worry about that, and have they not been gaining ground for 100 years? 2) So, we have to avoid the truth, avoid principles? We have to avoid our actual history? We have to run with the premises of the enemy as though they matter? Why?