Tam, at View From The Porch, displays prodigious thinking capacity commenting on the knee jerk reaction call for magazine capacity restrictions (if you are not aware why the knees are jerking, you are not following the news).
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.
Or are you chicken?
Tam’s post is titled Some deaths are tragicer than others, see?
Their thought process, if you can call it that, is that two dead body’s is worse then 1, so limit the ability to produce 2. No, it doesn’t make sense to me either, unless I’m trying to prevent someone stupider than me from shooting me because of my asshole behavior toward them.
FWIW, I have the (2) original 10rd mags that came with my Beretta 92FS but never use them, well, maybe when I first got it. But my first priority was to order up (10) 18 rd mags. I prefer to shoot over reloading. I’m funny that way.