The anti-gun pundits, politicians, and lobbyists have been calling for more gun control, primarily of extended-capacity magazines, since the recent mass shooting at a Safeway in Tuscon, Arizona by a deranged loser who killed six people and wounded thirteen others. The deranged loser used a 9mm Glock 19 with a 33-cartridge magazine which was made for the model 18 9mm machine pistol some 25 years ago. (Remember how back then they hysterically screamed that the then-new Glock was a "plastic pistol that could get through airport metal detectors"?)
The anti-gun voices have been mostly calling for a law limiting magazine capacity to 10 cartridges; any more than that and such magazines are described as "devices made for killing a lot of people, fast" that lack "legitimate sporting use." In these people's minds the pistol and the extended-capacity magazine have been just as villainous as the murdering, deranged loser. Some columnists have referred to semiautomatic pistols as "personal weapons of mass destruction" and even claimed they are "unsuitable for self-defense." (No, I do not care to cite or link to these firearm illiterates and shysters.)
They portray themselves as the rational, virtuous, responsible ones struggling to save society from the dangers of the dogmatic, irresponsible, paranoid gun nuts and gun lobby.
Assuming for argument's sake that the anti-gunners' claims about the weapon used in the Tuscon shooting are correct only goes to show that they are to blame for the massacre.
Apparently anti-gunners like Chuck Schumer, Josh Sugarman, and Paul Helmke never heard of a Glock 33-round magazine until this shooting. Now they crusade against it! I thought they are the ones who are so concerned about "assault weapons" and "personal weapons of mass destruction" being "too accessible" and "on the streets" endangering us all, yet they had 25 years to ban this magazine and thereby prevent the Tuscon massacre - and did not. Why did they wait 25 years for blood to flow through the streets to finally bring this destructive implement to the public's attention and take appropriate legislative action? (No, magazines over 10-shots were not prohibited under the now-expired Clinton gun law.) This failing demonstrates that they are as irresponsible, immoral, and dangerous to society as those gun nuts and their lobby! The spilled blood in Tuscon is on the hands of the anti-gun lobby and politicians! Not only that, but we can expect more mass shootings because the calls for banning this magazine has led to a surge in demand for it!
It is of course absurd to actually argue the above, but what does it say about the anti-gunners' argument when it can be so effectively turned around against them? It exposes them for the fear-mongering shysters they have always been. It also challenges the credibility of their claim that this magazine and others like it are improper for civilian use and only made for killing a lot of people, fast. Then why were there not more uses of this magazine in previous mass shootings going back 25 years? (What about all the equally inevitable hijackings with Glocks that never happened?)
There is a similar problem for the anti-gunners as well regarding self-defense. If handguns like the Glock are "unsuitable for self-defense" as one anti-gun lobbyist has lately asserted - ridiculousness of this assertion aside - then what handgun is? They are, as usual, claiming that guns made for killing people should be banned, yet also claim to support self-defense ...but with what kind of gun? One not made for killing people?
Massad Ayoob, a cop, expert witness, gun writer, and firearms trainer said it best on his blog: "The sort of people who fear “high capacity magazines” are the ones who have no plan but to lie down and play dead – or die – if they’re ever in the presence of someone like mass-murderer Jared Loughner in Tucson earlier this month." I would add that they have no right to decide for me or anyone else that we also have to play dead or die!