Why Do We Need High-Capacity Clips on Our Guns? Really: We Want to Know.

Categories: Schutze

Thumbnail image for SHZ_GetOffMyLawn_TitleImageV2.jpg
Alright, believe it or not, this is a question, not a diatribe. I really do want to know. What is the downside of a ban on high-capacity ammo clips?

First I should ask: Do you think high-capacity clips are a significant factor in gun slaughters? It seems to me they are. In the Gabby Giffords slaughter, in the Aurora and Newtown slaughters, the amount of killing looks like it had a lot to do with the unbroken spell of absolute helplessness cast on the victims by the clips attached to the guns in question.

By unbroken spell, I mean there was never an instant, a break, a pause when the gun could not kill. Very few people can lunge into a gun that's still barking bullets. It's the re-load: that's when victims can attack.

Until the re-load, the only thing a victim can do is cower and die. So if you ban high-capacity clips, you force a faster re-load, which will give victims a better shot at attacking the shooter.

No?

If the idea of a high-capacity clip ban is a bad one, please tell me here why it is a bad one. Hey, look: I have covered this stuff as a reporter and engaged in barroom debates about it all my life, and during that time my opinions occasionally have been swayed by smart gun rights advocates. I do not believe I have a closed mind on this. I really want to know.

If we do need high-capacity clips, tell me what we need them for. If you own them, tell us why. We need to be honest and candid about guns: it's an important way we can all do something meaningful after Newtown. And when I say "we," I do not mean only people who are opposed to guns.

That's sort of easy right now. It gives us a place to direct our grief, anger and terror. We can stand up and rail against guns and maybe get some kind of cathartic effect out of it.
The gun rights defenders have it a lot tougher at this moment. If they speak up to defend their point of view, they have to worry they will look like they're defending the shooters.

For the sake of those children, we all need to back away from that line and show each other some respect on this issue, because that's the only way we can talk, and I don't know any way to solve anything except by talking.

So tell me. Really. What could be wrong with a ban on clips? Is it a slippery slope argument? Fine, make it. Is there a scenario in your mind that would require you to have access to high capacity clips? What is it? Just describe it. I guarantee you: even if I disagree absolutely with what you say, somebody else here will have your back. We are a very diverse group here on the lawn.

We all need to step up and speak. The one way we really do support the shooters is by keeping our mouths shut.



Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
208 comments
Mike Dunlap
Mike Dunlap

If Schutze is going to promote gun control laws (and good for him if so), then he might want to also change that whole shotgun-in-your-face logo of his.

Michael TruckMonth Ricker
Michael TruckMonth Ricker

So in this analogy a fat guy drinking too much soda is the same as some nut unloading hot lead into a bunch of 6 year olds, is that right?

Michael TruckMonth Ricker
Michael TruckMonth Ricker

The powers of the constitution are not limitless. You're not allowed to yell bomb in a plane despite the existance of the 1st amendment. No one is saying scrap the 2nd amendment (at least, no one I've seen thus far).

deacon_of_freakin
deacon_of_freakin

If you need a 30 round clip for personal defense, either your aim or your personality sucks. 

The64kid
The64kid

To the author, Jim Schutze: It is a slippery-slope. Here is an example: Marijuana laws... I have long been a strong proponent of marijuana law reform in our country. Each year we needlessly criminalize hundreds of thousands of Americans -most of them youths- for using a substance that is safer than alcohol. When the idea of medicinal marijuana first emerged, the anti-pot crowd sounded the alarm and warned that it was a slippery-slope. They claimed that medicinal marijuana legislation could easily lead to rapid full-on legalization of this 'dangerous narcotic drug'. Pro-pot folks, such as myself, quickly dismissed their argument as invalid and unfounded. We would say, "Nonsense, let the sick people have their medicine. Polls do not show public support for recreational legalization. We are not asking for full legalization, just for this one change. Is it not reasonable to give the Cancer and AIDS patients the relief they need?"This November, only a few short years later, voters in two states -where medicinal marijuana was legal- voted to legalize all marijuana (for any use) for adults 21+. I would have argued with the anti-pot people's slippery-slope argument back when there was still a large debate over medicinal marijuana, but I can say this now... They were right. It was indeed a slippery-slope (and we all knew was it all along). And so it is with gun-control. First it's high-capacity magazines. But that won't stop these tragic events from happening. So next time, it will be all semi-auto rifles and pistols; we only need single shot rifles and shotguns for hunting. That won't stop it from happening again either, so then we will have to ban all guns so that only the military, the police and the criminals have them. Then when a criminal with a gun shows up, we will have to wait on the police to arrive while we possibly get shot by the criminal who has a gun. The police may show up and capture the criminal and turn him over to the courts to be convicted and punished. But none of that will do much good to the person who was shot dead while waiting on the police to show up (average police response time is at least 5-15 minutes in most cities). As we seem to typically do in our society, we are focusing all of our attention on treating a symptom while ignoring the underlying cause of the problem. It was not a gun that decided to commit such horrid unspeakable acts, it was a mentally ill young man living in a sick society. We need to reform our mental health systems and our social systems to prevent this type of thing from ever happening again. And we should be looking for solutions to those problems with all of our might, instead of focusing so much of our energy bickering about something that we all know will not prevent this from happening again in the future. We need to stop focusing on GUN-violence and start focusing on ALL-violence. We need to stop focusing on GUN-murders and start focusing on ALL-murders. We need to stop focusing on how many bullets we should be allowed to hold and start focusing on our serious issues with mental illness, and the lack of love in our society.

Adam Silva
Adam Silva

The idea that the 2nd amendment allows for no restrictions on guns is fairly recent interpretation of the Constitution... State laws banning concealed weapons, for instance, date back to the early 1800s. The first federal gun control law was passed in the 1930s.

Eddie Edwards
Eddie Edwards

Adam, please explain. Are you saying and honestly mean changing the constitution? The one that we have now has brought is this far. We are the ones who have skewed things. When you are teaching kids to play a sport. There are basics and proven fundamentals into teaching and becoming good players. The constitution doesn't need to change. We need to get back to the fundamentals. Then re-work the way WE do or approach things.

Adam Silva
Adam Silva

Yes, because that's why I'm saying. :rolls eyes:

Nathan Meyer
Nathan Meyer

Why not all the rest of them while were at it, why not just throw the whole Constitution out and start over?

Adam Silva
Adam Silva

Obviously the Founders could never have predicted the power certain guns now have and how much non-war murder they would be responsible for. We've have to adapt the 1st amendment and others to changing technology, why not the second?

Nathan Meyer
Nathan Meyer

...which still has nothing to do with the types of guns they were using. If they were concerned with arming "well-regulated militias" that would mean they thought all citizen should have access to military weapons as well as guns.

Adam Silva
Adam Silva

They were concerned with arming "well-regulated militias."

Nathan Meyer
Nathan Meyer

It's doubtful they were focused on which type of guns they writing about. They were more likely focused on the issue of our right to self defense.

Nathan Meyer
Nathan Meyer

It's an issue of fear on both sides. However, it is the the pro-gun side who feels they need an emotional situation in order to push their side of the debate instead of just relying on presenting a logical argument... sort of like President George W. did when he used the emotion surrounding the 9/11 attacks to foster public support for an invasion of Iraq. Maybe we should be focusing on the underlying problems that cause this sort of thing instead of just trying to treat one of the symptom.

Eddie Edwards
Eddie Edwards

Sooooo...is it the magazines that are killing people or the crazy people that are killing people? If we eliminate high cap magazines? They would just buy more magazines to hold ammo? Boils back to the point what or who is killing people? The crazy people. I have yet to have my high cap magazine jump into my gun and go kill someone or thing. If its twisted to an argument about accessibility...should cars be banned from people who drink? Regulate the speed of the vehicle if they do drink and drive? If that sounds silly, so is this argument about high cap magazines. It is the evil in people's hearts that cause them to kill.

Nathan Meyer
Nathan Meyer

Why do police need them? [insert any answer here] ...That is why we need them, especially when we live out in the country 20-30 minutes away from any police.

Chris Brooks
Chris Brooks

Ban 'em all you like now. I have all I need.

Gabriel Wymore
Gabriel Wymore

A high capacity mag never killed anyone at a gun show, pawn shop, Academy Sports, Walmart, etc... Why not address the real problem, people with psychological problems getting ahold of weapons. Not just guns. Last time I checked you can still kill with things other than a gun.

CherNoBill
CherNoBill

We need high capacity magazines to protect ourselves from paranoid conservative white people who think the government is going to invade their Faux News bunker to confiscate their cap pistols and copies of 'Guns And Ammo.'

You cowardly, cranky, crazy-ass Pea Tardy white people stay off my lawn with your beloved automatic weapons and 'The NRA is God' t-shirts.

Craig Monroe
Craig Monroe

How many rounds is too many? 1? How do we reach that decision?

Adam Martinez
Adam Martinez

There is NO downside. Except that people will have to buy more guns to carry around and won't be able to kill as many people as fast. Lets just do them all a favor and not make it more difficult on them.

Tristan Price
Tristan Price

Most of Texans would feel you have taken their balls away.i think their balls are misplaced.

kirkunit
kirkunit

@Dallas_Observer The same folks that want to arm the peasants to prevent tyranny also defund the safety net increasing odds of a rebellion

Robyn Folmar
Robyn Folmar

I think what you are seeing here is an issue of freedom and the fear of it being taken away. The pro-gun group believes their freedoms are being stripped by the government (see above "what few rights that still remain" and references to big drink cups and the like. ) The pro-regulation group feels our freedoms are being stripped away by the fear of more and more gun violence, ie: kids having to do more lockdown drills, sitting by exits in theaters, etc because of the belief that these shootings are becoming more frequent. It's a Freedom issue on both sides and an issue of how one defines it.

Craig Monroe
Craig Monroe

The downside is that is one more thing the govt would take away. It will prevent nothing and only serve to further erode what few rights that still remain.

Esteban Mainzer
Esteban Mainzer

"Jon, the Second Amendment was written at a time when it took almost a minute to reload one round." sooo...because it's old...we should scrap it? how about that one that gives you the right to free speech? should we scrap that because they didn't have ball-point pens?

Esteban Mainzer
Esteban Mainzer

this argument is moronic. go ahead and take away high-capacity clips. they'll just by MORE guns to equal it out. liberals are stupid.

houstonronpaul2012
houstonronpaul2012

We need high capacity magazines to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government who is stripping away our human rights.

Damien Snavely
Damien Snavely

I dunno. It only takes a couple seconds to out a new mag in... Notice that's a magazine... Not a clip

Adam Silva
Adam Silva

Jon, the Second Amendment was written at a time when it took almost a minute to reload one round.

John McMahon
John McMahon

Both are ridiculous! Banning large ammo clips or large cups will have ZERO effect on whether or not people do the wrong thing. Evil people will still kill and sugar junkies will still drink too much. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Peter Doll
Peter Doll

All people will do is carry more guns if they want to commit a horrible crime so even if you ban the clips you are still accomplishing nothing.

Trina Taki Hendrix-Hamilton
Trina Taki Hendrix-Hamilton

Lets ban fertilizer and gasoline, forks and knives too while we're at it. Lets even ban passing gas because it releases carbon into the air.

John McMahon
John McMahon

What is the downside of a ban on large soft drink cups?

Aaron Dietrich
Aaron Dietrich

Go ahead ban the high capacity clips. Every gun owner in the United States already has a AR-15 possible two or three followed by 10 thirty round clips. Good luck on gun control, the guns are already out there.

Cabe Booth
Cabe Booth

Where am I gonna store my extra bullets?

Jon Jackson
Jon Jackson

It's called a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs for a reason.

Heather Golubski
Heather Golubski

as one of my friends so intelligently commented.. we need high capacity clips for the same reason we need muscle cars that go MUCH faster than the legal speed limits. "Cuz they're fun!".

Dave Ybanez
Dave Ybanez

And looking like a lunatic with a shotgun doesn't give this "old white man" any creedence.

Ron Schulz
Ron Schulz

We dont. If you cant hit what your aiming at with 10 shots you should not own a gun !

DOCensors
DOCensors

@Adam Silva Yeah it's almost like there is no murder anywhere else! Or that the founders never had to deal with violent people forcing their way into their homes!

Jo531
Jo531

@Gabriel Wymore That is not true. In Irving, Texas on Christmas eve about ten years ago, some prisoners escaped (I think 7), stole guns from Acamademy Sports, killed a police officer, and ran. Eventually, they were caught and executed. 100,000 Americans were shot in the US last year, and 30,000 died from their gunshot wounds. Why is it that people without guns do not have the same fear as the people with guns. Many Southern Christians believe they should carry guns with their Bible, in case their faith isn't good enough. The gun is mightier than their faith, I guess.

deacon_of_freakin
deacon_of_freakin

@RichardMorgan Thank goodness you showed up a week later to correct me, with a hyperlink and everything. At least we know your aim is fine. 

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...