Skip to main content

Lieutenant Governor Matt Denn favors retaining some larger capacity magazines for home defense

Gun control conversations are ... interesting.

Recently, Libertarian Greg Callaway wrote to Lt. Gov. Matt Denn expressing his opposition to proposed new gun control legislation.  Most of the answer (which you can read here) is fairly typical politico-speak.  But then Denn talks about magazine restrictions, which leads to one oxymoron and one really interesting point.

First, the oxymoron:
There is now strong statistical evidence that responsible regulation of large capacity gun magazines does reduce the number of those magazines used by criminals. A study published this year of Virginia law enforcement data showed that following the implementation of the 1994 federal restrictions on large capacity magazines, the percentage of criminals’ guns confiscated during arrests which had those magazines dropped by half. When the ban expired, the percentage of criminals’ guns with high capacity magazines increased all the way back up to the levels seen before the federal law. 
OK, leaving aside that this was not a formal academic study, but a Washington Post analysis that is not subject to peer review or verification, the study did not show an increase in the use of weapons with large-capacity magazines to commit crimes, only an increase in the number of such magazines seized by police.  This is a fairly critical difference.  There is also no evidence that the statistical methodology used by WaPo reporters took into account changes in the overall numbers of magazines seized, or the number of individuals from which magazines were seized, as opposed to the percentage rates of seizure.  In fact, the study authors admit that their data only covered 75% of the total weapons seized.  So the oxymoron in Denn's response is that while the statistic he quotes is accurate, it is also meaningless.  It could be indicative of the effectiveness of a ban, but there is an equal chance that it's not.

Now for the interesting point:
As the Lieutenant Governor works to draft a bill regarding large capacity magazines, he has made an effort to reach out to gun owners and solicit their opinions about some of the practical issues involved in regulating these devices. The feedback has been very helpful, and in some cases has caused him to change the way the administration’s bill is drafted. For example, the administration had originally planned to draft a bill that would limit the capacity of magazines for handguns to 10 rounds, and magazines for rifles and shotguns to five rounds, based on the fact that many hunting rifles are sold with five round magazines. However, several gun owners have impressed on the Lieutenant Governor the importance of allowing homeowners who may be inexperienced in firing a gun to have a sufficient magazine to defend their homes. So the bill that the administration will propose to the legislature will propose a limit of ten rounds, no matter what type of gun is involved. The Lieutenant Governor is continuing to talk to gun owners as he drafts the administration’s bill, and he has found their input very helpful. [emphasis added] 
This is an important, if very subtle point.  First it points out the the Markell administration was first seeking a limitation on magazine capacity that would have been twice as stringent as the one under the previous Federal ban.  That's food for thought in and of itself.  But it is equally important to note that the Lieutenant Governor claims that his mind was changed by gun owners with regard to home defense.  This is an intriguing point, and raises the question about what would happen if a citizen made a similar argument about personal defense outside the home.  Does someone become inherently more or less capable of using a weapon for defense because s/he is in the home?

(To return to that Virginia "study" for a moment:  contrary to what you would have thought if you listened to most of the rhetoric that passes for gun control discussion today, 87% of the confiscated magazines in Virginia were for pistols, not "assault weapons."  In fact, when you factor out the seized magazines of .22 rifles--not covered in the ban--only 814 of the 14,478 weapons counted in the study were "assault weapons"--a staggering small 5.6%.)

But the Denn response does make it clear that the Markell administration (and particularly the Lieutenant Governor who has his own career plans after 2016) is going to try to position itself as willing to listen and make compromises on the final language of its legislation.  Denn does NOT want to run for Governor in 2016 behind an unpopular piece of legislation.

So let's help him.

Write to Governor Matt Denn at  matthew.denn@state.de.us and tell him (respectfully, please) what you think should be included or excluded in the proposed legislation.

Comments

kavips said…
I used to have magazines all over my house and then, we got curb-side recycling.

(That may not be funny tomorrow, but I'm cracking up right here)... :)

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...