Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America http://www.gunlaws.com Parity with Police: The public faces the same criminals police do. Any restrictions for the public must match what police can use: The public is always first at the scene of an attack. The Crux By focusing on magazine size instead of ways to stop active shooters you jeopardize everyone's safety. Hoping to limit murderers by limiting magazines is irrational and hoplophobic. Why have people picked a ten-round limit? Why not two? Are they saying it's OK to only kill ten people? That makes no sense. Would you make police obey the same limit? Why not? Parity with Police: The public faces the same criminals police do. Any restrictions for the public must match what police can use: The public is always first at the scene of an attack. If you can't justify impeding the police with ammunition limits, you cannot legitimately justify impeding the public that way. What's needed to stop rampages is not another law written on paper, but speedier law enforcement, or any armed people who can respond. A criminal can't have a magazine of any size. A law restricting size adds nothing. None of these arguments matter. People who want to restrict magazines are on a roll, using the Tucson assassinations for momentum. They want any kind of gun bans they can get, regardless of crime fighting, public safety, logic or reason. They are emotionally compromised. Limiting ammo for the public as a way to stop murders, can't work. Limiting the amount of ammunition a person has for self defense is dangerous. The only way to stop a lethal attack is with countervailing force. The correct response to a mass murderer is not to restrict firearms for the public. People are the first responders. Police are second responders. We face the same criminals. We both need the best tools we can get. We know that laws banning murder and armed criminals don't stop criminals. Why would you want to do more of the same when you know it doesn't work? (Because it's a hoplophobic response, not a rational one.) An infringed-capacity magazine violates your civil rights. Infringing on the size of a magazine doesn't stop crazy people. Will it feel good, like you're doing something? Yes. Will it actually do something? No. Sound reasoning Will a magazine limit stop a murderer from carrying several guns? Of course not. Will it prevent swapping out magazines? How do you propose controlling that? Infringing on magazine size has no effect on the millions of magazines already out there. Size infringement has no impact on criminals who cannot be armed in the first place. Limiting the public doesn't limit criminals, it just limits the public. Trying to stop crazy people by limiting magazine size can't work. The public should have at least as much ammunition as police can have. Because people face the same criminals police do, we have a right to equal equipment. Attacking the right to an uninfringed magazine because of one assassin is a political game, not a meaningful solution to homicidal rampages. Using a tragic homicidal assault for leverage against civil rights is reprehensible. Using this tragedy to advance a political agenda aimed at incrementally disarming the public is the ugliest underbelly of politics, and shameful. Killing Is Fun! Someone has to say it -- With constant Technicolor promotion of "the thrill of killing" from Hollywood and TV, we can expect more homicidal rampages. We must be on alert to stop it cold when it inevitably occurs. They're not deranged, their imitating -- With Hollywood and the networks glorifying immoral behavior, portraying thugs and killers as heroes to be emulated, and mourned when put down, it's usually incorrect to attribute criminal acts as mental disease. The proper response to the recognition that people can go berserk and cause mayhem is to foster a culture of marksmanship. From army posts to grocery stores, homicidal attacks take place in make-believe gun free zones. Paper signs do not deter murderers. An artificial gun-free zone made by posting a sign may feel good, but it is repeatedly proven to be extremely dangerous and negligent. A person who posts a no-guns-allowed sign should be liable if it causes harm. See the model legislation for this: http://www.gunlaws.com/GFZ/GFZ-BillReview.htm It's time to broadly promote National Training Week from July 4 through 11, when all Americans are encouraged to go to the range and practice. Details here: http://www.gunlaws.com/NationalTrainingWeek.htm It's time to consider a tax break or tax credit to encourage people to go to the range and improve their readiness and skills. The millions of 30-round and larger magazines out there are not used for killing, they're used at ranges, which is where most legal gun use is conducted. Attacks on magazines are attacks on ranges, the home court for the Second Amendment, the bottom line on legal gun use. Attacks on magazines are attacks on the heart of the right to keep and bear arms. Disarm criminals first. Politically Corrected Glossary Always frame the debate as pro rights vs. anti rights, never as pro gun vs. anti gun, which yields ground to the antis. This is a civil-rights issue, a question of fundamental human rights. Always talk about discreet carry, a cultural and civilized norm, never about concealed carry, which sounds like you have something to hide. Always refer to personal sidearms, a neutral and non-inflammatory term, never to handguns, a word that has been vilified beyond usefulness. Remember that assault is a kind of behavior, not a kind of hardware. The media loves that word because it spins the debate to their liking. Always ask a person who questions about assault-weapon possession what guns they're talking about exactly. They do not know. Any weapon you can own is an ordinary household firearm, the type you might find in any American household. Don't waste time and audience attention correcting ignorant reporters who talk about clips or bullets. Let them remain self-evidently ignorant. See the entire Politically Corrected Glossary: http://www.gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm