It has been a week since we broadcast and posted my “In Perspective” piece arguing for the regulation of magazines like the one allegedly used in the Tucson shootings. Hundreds (and thousands, if you read the Huffington Post version) of comments later, I have learned two things.
First, as so many gun enthusiasts wrote, I should have avoided calling the 33-round magazine a “clip,” which is the term I have always used. Then again, if the Second Amendment purists had not found a terminological target, then they would not have had much else to say. Which brings me to the second lesson. While I understand the personal-defense argument and think it the strongest countercase, I do not believe there are enough gunfights between malefactors and law-abiding citizens to outweigh the lesson of Tucson: that such oversized magazines raise the risk of indiscriminate massacre.
Let’s try the 1994-2004 rules again. It is a debate worth having.