|
Gun News Daily Two Questions Gun Owners Have Trouble Answering By William Lolli CalNRA Contributing Editor Sunday, May 02, 1999 I have been watching with intense interest as the media and anti-2nd Amendment forces focus their hate-speech on the NRA and gun owners following the Littleton, Colorado deaths. Interviews, round-table discussions, and town-hall meetings have proven that pro-gun forces are weak in certain topical and debate areas. NRA President Heston stammered and failed to answer two reasonable questions of Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts on ABC's This Week's May 2, 1999 broadcast. We should all learn from this. We must learn to have the correct and truthful answers when we are talking to those who ask legitimate questions; like the two, seemingly most-difficult-to-answer questions below: Question: What is wrong with reinstating "waiting periods" for gun purchases? Won't they prevent people from emotionally procuring a gun? Won't waiting periods save lives? The man who seeks to kill his estranged wife or the mentally imbalanced person who intends to murder-won't a 3- or 5-day waiting period save a life? Answer: Waiting periods only prevent the law-abiding from procuring a gun for lawful self-defense. There are many, many documented cases where waiting periods prevented a woman from purchasing a gun to defend herself from a stalker, murderous ex-husband, and recently paroled ex-boyfriend. These are factual cases, and factual instances. During the Rodney King Riots in Los Angeles, hundreds of terrorized, law-abiding citizens were turned away from purchasing defensive firearms by California's 15-day waiting period. They were turned away-back into the violent streets, to watch helplessly as their homes and businesses burned, because government was powerless to protect them, and the law allowed looting predators to rule the streets. Murderers and mentally imbalanced potential killers will find the weapons they will, to accomplish their desired ends. That leaves law-abiding victims helpless to defend themselves. Thusly, the "cost" of aggression by the murderer or the transgressor is substantially increased when the criminal knows that the victim can easily and lawfully arm themselves after going through an Instant Background Check with no waiting period. Question: High capacity ammunition feeding devices can hold 20-, 30-, 50-, or even 100-rounds of ammunition. What is the legitimate use for these devices? Aren't they only used to increase the "killing power" of a semi-auto gun or assault weapon? Why doesn't the NRA help ban the possession of these menaces? These aren't used for hunting; these were designed to kill people-and lots of them. Why not ban them? Answer: If we agree with the premise that large capacity magazines are solely used to kill people in mass quantities indiscriminately, then we must ask why do we allow the police to use these "instruments of mass destruction"? Do the police intend to release a volley of indiscriminate hail of bullets at every crime scene? Of course not. Yet they always possess large-capacity magazines in every instance, even when they are giving you a parking ticket. Both police and military, and civilians I might add, possess high-capacity magazines so as to allow the defender to address with lethal or wounding force the dynamic circumstance of the threat posed. If you pose to me ANY scenario where the use of a firearm must be used as the means of preventing or stopping violent aggression, I can demonstrate that use of a high-capacity magazine would be necessary to maintain a controlled response to the dynamic changes in the scenario posed. This is not psychobabble or sophistry. This is a fact employed by every law-enforcement agency in the country. In fact, it is taught as demonstrable and empirical fact in law enforcement training. If large capacity magazines save lives in police use, why not in civilian use? Is the life of a police officer more valuable than a citizen? Of course not. Therefore, instruments necessary for the security of a free state and to preserve the lives of all citizens must not be banned from lawful use. |