Washington Post: VA High Cap Mag Seizures Soar. And?

Has the mainstream media decided that high capacity magazines are inherently bad? Seems so. In today’s article Virginia, high-yield clip seizures rise, Washington Post writers David S. Fallis and James V. Grimaldi make a particularly weak case, starting with “The role of high-capacity magazines in gun crime was thrust into the national spotlight two weeks ago when 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner allegedly opened fire with a semiautomatic handgun outside a Tucson grocery store, killing six and wounding 13, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.). Authorities say Loughner used a legally purchased 9mm Glock 19 handgun with a 31-round clip and was tackled while changing magazines.” Guilt by association? And how . . .

Guns with high-capacity magazines have appeared in Virginia crimes ranging from the mundane to the murderous. The Post found that 200 guns with high-capacity magazines figured in Virginia homicides, including these incidents:

No, I’m not going to scrape the spree killings. Suffice it to say . . .

Last year in Virginia, guns with high-capacity magazines amounted to 22 percent of the weapons recovered and reported by police. In 2004, when the ban expired, the rate had reached a low of 10 percent. In each year since then, the rate has gone up.

So, that’s 200 murders out of an unspecified total spread out across an indeterminate amount of time linked to the fact that 78 percent of weapons recovered and reported (but not necessarily used in a gun crime never mind a homicide) did NOT have a high capacity magazine.

Misleading is just a word. The Post’s high cap mag = more death equation is such a tentative not to say confusing and irrelevant correlation that the article soon abandons its quest for linkage in favor of another grisly anecdote. And a don’t-put-words-in-my-mouth-but-I’ll-say-what-you-need-me-to-say quote from a guy who conducted a government study of the now-extinct modern home defense sporting assault weapons ban in 2004.

Tentatively I was able to show that guns associated with large-capacity magazines tended to be associated with more serious crimes, more serious outcomes,” [Dr. Christopher Koper] said.

And where, pray tell, is the link to this high capacity smoking gun? The Post forgot, I guess. Never mind. TTAG’s got you covered (so to speak). Click here for the doc in question (now, by us) and go to page 18. Here’s what the report actually said . . .

. . . guns equipped with LCMs [Large Capacity Magazines]– of which AWs [Assault Weapons] are a subset – are used in roughly 14% to 26% of gun crimes. Accordingly, the LCM ban has greater potential for affecting gun crime. However, it is not clear how often the ability to fire more than 10 shots without reloading (the current magazine capacity limit) affects the outcomes of gun attacks (see Chapter 9). All of this suggests that the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small.

To bolster it’s fact-less case, the Post trots out the fifth head of the currently headless Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (and Really Big Fires): Bradley A. Buckles [above]. The man who took the helm of the ATF after the slaughter at Waco, Texas, and helped usher in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Bradley A. Buckles, ATF director from 1999 to 2004, said bureau officials advised Congress to focus on high-capacity magazines, which were “completely unregulated” and had almost no sporting purpose.

“The whole thing with magazine capacity came out of ATF,” Buckles said. “It wasn’t so much guns, but it was firepower. What made them more deadly than a hunting rifle was the fact that you could have a 20-round, 30-round clip, when most hunting rifles wouldn’t have more than five rounds.”

Buckles had a hard-on for high-cap mags. The Post also forgets to mention Springfield vs. Buckles, wherein Springfield (importers) sued then-ATF Director Buckles for the agency’s high capacity magazine ban-mania. And lost. While Buckles never lost his anti-high-cap-mag fervor, even the Post’s enthusiasm for a return to the good old days can’t mask the man’s pessimism.

Buckles said lawmakers should have extended the ban on high-capacity magazines in 2004. Banning them now, he said, just puts everyone back at square one.

“There are so many millions of them out there, it probably wouldn’t make any immediate difference over the course of 20 years,” Buckles said. “It is not a short-term solution to anything.”

So let’s forget it then, shall we?

comments

  1. avatar Ralph says:

    Massachusetts still has its “assault weapons” law in force (thank you, Mitt Romney, you RINO), so magazines of more than 10 rounds are banned unless they were manufactured before 9/13/94. The “pre-ban” magazines are not hard to find, but I’m not willing to pay a premium for them. So, I always buy many additional “legal” magazines. After the antis ban “hi-cap” magazines, they will move on anyone who has more magazines than the antis want us to have, and then they will limit the amount of ammunition that anyone can purchase. It’s back-door gun control. Better stock up now.

  2. avatar Jamie says:

    “when most hunting rifles wouldn’t have more than five rounds.”
    Remind me again where the part about “hunting rifles or sporting use” is in the 2nd Amendment? F–k him and the horse he rode in on!!! I’m posting this as an AR and pistol owner who doesn’t use 30 rnd mags and I’ll never support a ban on them. We know what their ultimate goal is and it ain’t “common sense” gun control.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      The phrases “common sense” and “gun control” should not be said in the same sentence.

  3. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

    Let’s take one good hunter and pit him against five gangbangers each with 30 round mags, and you’ll have five DEAD gangbangers. Hunters hit their targets, while gangbangers only hit innocent bystanders. Not much advantage to hi cap mags in this case, or most involving criminals because these fools can’t shoot. I should rephrase that, they can only shoot kids and lil old ladys waiting for a bus.

    1. avatar Wes says:

      If there’s no advantage to hi-cap mags in that case, I guess the cops don’t need them, either. …except that cops seems to miss a lot during shootouts.

  4. avatar Ryan Finn says:

    This is ridiculous. I live in Northern Virginia and I am unaware of any homicides caused by firearms this year. Yet over in high cap magazine (more than 20 rounds) banning Maryland, they have had so many murders in one county this year that they had to bring in federal help. Virginia is “shall issue” and has pro 2A gun laws, Maryland is “may issue” and has rigid gun laws. Not scientific evidence by any stretch, but I’m sure we’re all smart enough here to draw our own intelligent conclusions.

    1. avatar Jean-Claude says:

      You must live in a pretty white area. The area which needed Federal help has a high black population.

      I don’t know why this subject is taboo. There is ONE common factor among all the cities in America which have a high murder rate. That factor is, of course, having a high percentage of black people. Where is the violence in Chicago? Where the black people are. Where is the violence in Memphis? Where the black people are. Where is the violence in Philadelphia? Where the black people are. LA? Blacks(and Mexicans, for a change). NYC? Black people. Miami? Blacks. Houston? Blacks. Newark? Blacks.

      America doesn’t have a gun problem. It has a blacks with guns problem. Blacks are 13% of the population and commit 51% of the murders—and the only reason the FBI lists whites as committing as many as they do is because the FBI counts non-white Hispanics as white. Yep, according to the FBI, an El Salvadoran Indian MS-13 gang member is white as snow. And let’s get deeper. Something has to be done to either fix the ills of the black community or bring them to heel. Generations of young men raised without fathers and fed a constant stream of “it’s manly to be a gangsta” propaganda by the media all but guarantees a lawless subculture.

  5. avatar AuricTech says:

    I really hate the word “alleged” in press reports dealing with instances where the perp was apprehended in the act of the crime he committed, in front of numerous witnesses.

    And, of course, since Mr. XSN likely committed perjury on his Form 4473 (you know, the question about unlawful use of drugs), the whole “lawfully purchased” meme falls apart.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email