So this jerk of a professor feels that if you can’t successfully stop all of the assailants attacking you with a “low capacity” mag then you deserve to die for your lack of “marksmanship training”

How gun control proponents might win over some Second Amendment advocates

The writer is a is a professor of psychology at Elon University.

I’m no expert on firearms engineering or policy, just a concerned citizen who has spent my lifetime around knowledgeable and responsible gun owners.

From this personal experience, one thing is clear to me: A considerable number of proponents of gun control seem to know very little about the firearms they seek to regulate and so often sound ignorant when discussing gun control.

Those in favor of expansive gun rights are keenly aware of this lack of understanding, making it difficult for Second Amendment advocates to take serious proposals to further regulate guns.

It’s time to stop obsessing over the nebulous term “assault weapon” and the cosmetic features that qualify a firearm as an “assault weapon.”

There is one functional feature of many “assault weapons” that, if regulated, could substantially reduce injuries and fatalities during mass-shootings — high-capacity magazines. A ban on such magazines would be a meaningful step to reduce the potential damage a firearm can cause in a mass shooting scenario.

There is no legitimate sporting or self-defense need for someone with proper marksmanship training to possess a 10-plus round magazine.

Creating a regulatory environment where the possession, sale and manufacture of such magazines could be phased out over time would be a substantial advancement from a harm-reduction standpoint. It could include a multi-year plan where low-capacity magazines would be made widely available to law-abiding gun owners before anything was banned outright.

Common-sense gun regulations (such as extensive owner training, licensing, and perhaps the registration of all firearms) that treat guns and shooting the same way we treat motor vehicles and driving are worthy of significant discussion. But this dialogue becomes challenged when the proponents of such regulation are fixated on the form of particular firearms, rather than their function.

Mat Gendle, Elon