Three shots and out

Genius has it limits. Stupidity apparently has no constraints. John Otis demonstrates:

So on behalf of our citizens, in the name of ethics and/or sportsmanship and safety, and in support of Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, I’m suggesting a modest proposal: that all private guns, long ones and short ones, be altered to fire just three rounds in succession before reloading with an exemption, of course, for the military and the police.

Such an alteration would be far from modest. It would be mechanically and financially infeasible, unconstitutional, and almost universally ignored. This is a prime example of the truth of Mencken’s observation which I posted yesterday.


12 thoughts on “Three shots and out

  1. Wow! I couldn’t even agree with that! I think 10 rounds is a good limit. I think three rounds is not enough.

    Like a lot of other people, I don’t see a need for the 30+ magazine.

  2. ubu52: that’s because you’ve never been confronted with a howling mob. Ask Korean shopowners, on their roofs during the LA riots, how much magazine capacity they would have preferred to the CA-mandated 10!

    Also, Mr. Otis will have a hell of a time restricting my nasty Russian revolver to three rounds….

    Also, please explain to me why you thing you should be about to buy books with more 100 pages. Those big fat books are only full of ideas that get people killed!

  3. It’s always funny to me when people who refuse to look at history (history of nations that limited firearm ownership, history of the violence that occurs in areas with the most gun laws, etc) make jokes out of themselves without noticing it. Anytime someone starts with, “A modest proposal…” I can only think of the humour that came from Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”. Do they not realize that – inherently – their words are looked upon as satire?

    While I’m not a fan of comparing the danger of guns to the dangers of automobiles, nor the Second Amendment to the First – just for giggles, I’ll retaliate with my own “Modest Proposal” to stop all the deaths that occur because of automobiles: We’ll modify all existing automobiles to only be able to travel at 5MPH because that will prevent deaths from poorly trained and evil drivers.

    I used to shake my head and wonder how people could make such suggestions while being so poorly informed (about laws, history, and the Bill of Rights), but now I realize it’s just an epidemic of bad education and ignorance and they’re victims themselves.

  4. When I hear a politician, bureaucrat or most anyone use the phrase “modest proposal” “minor inconvenience” or something similar, I am reminded of the phrase “Let me be honest here” Its usually anything but.

  5. Why don’t we make gas tanks smaller, so people won’t drive as much? That makes about as much sense as that chucklehead.

    “It’s so much easier to suggest solutions when you don’t know too much about the problem.”
    – Malcolm Forbes

  6. @ubu52: Please tell us the means you use to determine what magazine capacity is “enough.” Feelings, and a predilection for round numbers (which I also suffer from), don’t count.

  7. Roberta,

    AFAIK, the Korean shopkeepers had RAWs. The riots happened before the Clinton AWB but after California decided to start registering certain models and there was no 10 round limit.

  8. Why should we listen to you, ubu, if you don’t have any self-defense knowledge whatsoever, but are only acting out of false compassion?

    Answer me. Who told you that lie that you could save everyone?

  9. Ubu,

    So you admit there might be some circumstances (although they be rare) in which a legitimate gun owner might have non-sporting cause to possess, and perhaps even use, standard-capacity ammunition feeding devices?

  10. I think 10 rounds is a good limit. I think three rounds is not enough.

    So, specifically what is it about that 11th round that makes it unacceptable? Why is 10 okay, and 11 evil? Why not 6, which is one of the most common revolver capacities?

    More to the point, what is your logical reasoning for choosing that specific point to restrict my rights?

  11. If I recall correctly the Long Island Expressway shooter had 10 rounders. No one else was armed so really there wasn’t much difference. I believe he reloaded the mags he had and was only subdued when he started reloading empty mags using loose rounds he had in a bag.

    I believe Tam said:

    The thing about “magazine capacity restrictions” is that they’re fundamentally and philosophically flawed. Anyone saying that “magazine capacity restrictions” would have “prevented” the outrage at Safeway is either barely brighter than a turnip or being fundamentally dishonest:

    * If magazines were limited to ten rounds, then you’re okay with ten corpses.

    * If it was just a six-shooter, you’ve got six cooling bodies to clean up on aisle three.

    * Even single-shot flintlocks (you know, like the kind you always say the “founding fathers could envision”) leave Congresswoman Giffords on the same ventilator as Gaston Glock’s latest offering.

    So by saying you’re in favor of magazines that hold no more than X rounds, you’re publicly stating that it’s only X+1 bodies that bother you. If that’s not what you mean to say, then come out and state your real intentions.

Comments are closed.