Democratic Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado signed bills yesterday that require background checks for private and online gun sales and limit a magazine’s ammunition capacity to 15 rounds.
Background checks are a reasonable measure, I feel. It’s unclear to me why anyone would oppose them. The argument, I think, is that criminals don’t subject themselves to background checks, nor can they be forced to since they generally buy their guns on the black market. In such cases, it goes, the only ones subjecting themselves to background checks are people who have no intention to kill or otherwise break the law with their guns, rendering the background checks redundant and unproductive.
If that’s the argument, then it’s a fair one. But the counterargument is stronger: Background checks certainly do not hurt anyone, and there are stories about people being prevented from buying guns because their background check revealed they have a history of violent behavior or assault or mental instability. Background checks are precautionary measures. What we don’t want is a sane person to snap, go on a shooting rampage in some liberal-run “gun-free” zone, and then discover that the shooter did purchase his guns through legal means and was not subjected to a background check. That hurts the pro-Second Amendment cause. So background checks, I’m fine with.
But this endeavor on the part of Democrats to limit how many rounds a person can have in his gun really baffles me.
Fifteen rounds, the new limit in Colorado, is probably enough to successfully take down an armed intruder, but to limit the rounds in a magazine is the opposite of a precautionary measure.
The average homeowner (let’s use a female in this example)–when her domain is entered, her sanctuary shattered–will be revved up on adrenaline and fear for her life, and she could very well miss after firing off 15 rounds (moving targets in the dead of night aren’t easy to hit), or otherwise only graze the potential rapist or murderer in a non-lethal area of his body. When it comes time to reload, her hands will be shaking and she will in all likelihood be fumbling with the clip. This is the ideal time for the intruder to attack. Colorado now says, “You get 15 chances to defend yourself. If you fail the first 15, you deserve the rape”?
Conversely, a psychopath who has the wherewithal to go on a massacre in public will not be hindered by a 15-round limit. These mass-shooters usually remain calm while they’re killing, thus making it much easier for them to reload after they’ve spent 15 bullets on 15 victims, especially in “gun-free” zones, where he knows he has plenty of time to aim and take shots at people without worrying that someone else has a gun to put a stop to his killing.
Liberals like to ask, Why do you need magazines that hold more than seven, more than fifteen, or more than x number of rounds?
Because I don’t want an armed criminal to know how many shots I have. I want my potential murderer to be eaten alive by uncertainty, by the possibility that I haven’t yet spent my last means of defense, that I’m still capable of putting a hole between his eyes. With a limit on how many bullets I can have in my gun, I lose half of my arsenal, and that half is the underestimated weapon of fear.
Governor Hickenlooper has just removed 50 percent of the advantage Colorado citizens once had over their potential attackers.