I remember when I was growing up, law enforcement officers carried revolvers, .38 caliber most commonly. At some point in the '80s they realized that the criminals they came up against had them out-gunned with semi-automatic 9mm or .45 caliber pistols. The criminals had more powerful weapons, which most importantly, loaded more bullets. Revolvers commonly load 6 rounds. A M1911 .45 caliber magazine carries 9 rounds. Most full size 9mm can load 10 or more rounds. Eventually, police forces traded their revolvers for semi-automatics.
That situation was used as an argument for restricting civilian purchase of semi-automatic guns and 'large capacity magazines.'
But it wasn't an honest argument. The people who out-gunned the police revolvers weren't citizens, they were criminals. The attempts to restrict lawful possession of fire arms had zero effect on unlawful possession, as any sentient being can easily figure out.
Now, the current argument against 'large capacity magazines' and 'assault rifles' is that law abiding citizens don't need such things. The most obvious reply is what has need to do with the right to keep and bear arms. I have the right independent of my need to exercise it.
On a practical level, if one of the purposes admitted as valid by the gun control nuts is for personal protection, isn't it illogical to limit me to a six-round revolver when the home invader against whom I need protection is probably carrying a semi-automatic weapon with twice as many rounds?
Why should I be denied a defensive capability, which logically means an increased probability of survival, than my fellow citizen the police officer? Is his life more valuable than mine? Our situations are similar: we are each confronted by a criminal with a large capacity, large caliber weapon. Why should our chances of survival be made dissimilar by force of law?
I've read a few news and opinion articles on the gun control issue. The most common argument on the side of increased restrictions or, in some instances, total bans; is that citizens don't NEED 'high capacity magazines' or 'assault weapons'. Again, the most obvious reply is: what does what someone else thinks I need have to do with my explicit Constitutional right?
Reading the comments of those articles makes things more clear. commentors who say they oppose gun ownership say they don't need guns because they live in safe neighborhoods, or that the police are there to protect them from violent criminals. I think this displays some very shallow thinking - or more likely an emotional rationalization.
These people who think they don't need guns because the police have guns are abandoning their responsibility to themselves and their family to protect themselves and enforce order in their homes.
The government establishes the police force to keep the peace and enforce the laws for the community.
Law enforcement agencies, particularly our local Sheriff's department conduct patrols and investigate crimes to act as a deterent to crime. But they aren't standing at my door at night. Or yours.
I have the responsibility to myself, my family and, in fact, the community, to keep the peace and enforce the law within my home and person.
I don't live in a dangerous area. I don't often go to dangerous areas. There are very few parts of our country that are really dangerous. Almost all of them are in cities run too long by incompetent, crooked Democrat machines (cf. Detroit, Los Angeles, Camden, NJ, Washington, DC, Chicago, Philadelphia). So, the probability of my being involved in a violent crime is low. But it isn't zero.
If by chance, a criminal picks my house for a robbery or my car for a car-jacking (considering the appearance of my vehicle, that is a VERY remote possibility) or me for a mugging, he almost certainly will have taken into account the likelihood of the sheriff interrupting his activity. So there will be no armed Law Enforcement Officer there to stop the criminal from accomplishing his objective.
But if there is an armed citizen, he may prevent the violence intended by the criminal, he may save his and his family's life. If the criminal knows that the streets outside my house are patrolled by the sheriff and the rooms inside are patrolled by me, his violent act may be deterred from the outset.
