While my mind is on the subject, but then when isn't it, I feel compelled to comment on another aspect of the Klinton Gun "symbolism over substance" Law of 1994.
The Whining goes on
The is much wailing and knashing of the teeth over at the enclaves of the Brady Bunch and the Million Commie Mommies over the return of .... ahhhh dare I say it.... "High Capacity Magazines" on the 14th of September.
Here's the deal. The only "high capacity magazines" I know of are those that were specifically made to hold more rounds than the firearm was originally designed to hold.
Before 1994 most all of the Glocks, Smith & Wessons and other hand held semi-automatic firearms came from the factory WITH magazines that held more than 10 rounds. That is the NORMAL capacity for those firearms. "High Capacity Magazine" is a catch phrase coined by the firearms-challenged crowd to instill fear and coercion to their point of view.
The truth is that the Klinton enspired Do-gooders arbitrarily, yes you read that correctly, arbitrarily decided that 10 rounds was the safe maximum that the citizens of America could be trusted with. Actually I think it was the lowest number they felt they could get away with and still get their worthless, ineffective gun grabbing measure passed. Additionally they agreed to a "sunset" provision that would have the cease to exist, if it was not renewed.
Many of those firearms are (pre-1994) are still made today, but Federal requirements dictate that they be sold with the REDUCED CAPACITY MAGAZINES.
It has not been proven anywhere that such a law has stopped or even reduced crime. In fact studies by the CDC and NIJ refute that claim and have concluded that the restriction on magazine capacity has not helped in anyway to reduce crime. Obviously there are some people in the government, by refusing to let it come up for a renewal vote, that get it. They see it as the waste of taxpayers money it has been and seeing to it that it dies a quick death, if not quiet.
10 round magazines for any firearm are as readily available today as the normal capacity magazines were a decade ago.
Food for thought
Consider someone that is contemplating shooting up their workplace or commiting some other henious crime. If that individual has determined that he/she needs 60 rounds of ammunition to accoplish their dirty deed then they will have in their posession six 10 round reduced capacity magazines, instead of four normal capacity magazines.
The thought that a person would carry less rounds because of the magazine restriction, thus less people would be injured or killed is bogus on the very face of it. A person bent on destruction WILL carry as many rounds in as many magazines as they deem necessary to accoplish their goal. Sarah Brady, Chuck Schumer, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dianne Fienstien and Barbara Boxer don't get that. Maybe you do.
That a criminal envading his/her work space with more magazines, thus preventing more tragedy, because the shooter wouldn't carry as much ammunition or has to reload more, allowing the "victims" to subdue or apprehend the the shooter between reloads is assine. Any normal person can reload a new magazine in a few seconds or so.
If a shooting such as describe happens in a state where the people are illegaly denied by their Government or employers from owning and/or carrying firearms for self defense (Nebraska), a shooter with a single shot firearm will still create all the carnage he/she can. Ernie Chambers, Dianne Schimek, Tom Casady and Matt Conealy don't get that. Maybe you do.
Couple that with the fact that very few unarmed citizens will attempt to tackle anyone shooting a gun in their direction and you can see the assinine idiocy of the "symbolic feel good we tried to do something even if it didn't have substance anyway" magazine restriction in the first place. So many people just don't get it. Maybe you do.