AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli
As noted earlier today, a mass shooting has a nasty tendency to reveal the ghoulish nature of anti-gun voices. They latch onto the tragedy to advance the cause of gun control regardless of the cost. They don’t care how relevant the matter is. What they care about is whether they can use the senseless murder of innocent people for their purposes.
That includes activist journalists at the Washington Post.
A Virginia bill designed to ban sales of large-capacity magazines similar to those used by the Virginia Beach gunman died in committee in January on a party-line vote.
The fate of the legislation, SB1748, was so widely expected that the outcome drew virtually no public attention. For more than 20 years, Republicans and a few rural Democrats in the General Assembly have killed almost every measure aimed at restricting gun ownership.
The GOP blocked a major push for gun control after the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings, where 33 people died. They chose instead to respond to that shooting by joining Democrats to enact mental-health reforms.
That was published on June 1st.
It goes on well after that to state:
Virginia Beach police said their officers shot and killed the gunman after a lengthy gun battle in which he used two .45-caliber semiautomatic handguns that were purchased legally.
Along with the weapons at the scene, investigators found a sound suppressor and extended magazines, which contain more than the standard number of rounds. Police have not identified a motive for the shooting.
In other words, the article tries to blame Virginia Republicans for the murder of 12 people in Virginia Beach.
However, there’s a significant problem with that thinking.
First, define a “standard number of rounds.” For example, what’s standard for a 1911 isn’t standard for a Glock 21. Without an actual number of rounds, much less a model of firearm, it’s impossible to understand what this phrase even means. There’s absolutely no context given.
Further, there’s the fact that the killer purchased his guns prior to this bill being introduced in the Virginia legislature. Those magazines were likely already in his possession by then.
In other words, even if a magazine capacity ban would have made a difference on the surface, there’s ample reason to believe that it would have still been meaningless in this case. It might have been different had the killer purchased his gun out of the blue right before going on his rampage, but he didn’t. He’d had it for about six months at a minimum.
Once again, activists try to push an agenda that paints pro-gun lawmakers as somehow evil for not responding the way anti-gunners want them to — in this case, not banning magazines with a certain capacity. However, there’s also no evidence to suggest that doing so would have saved a single life.
Yet it may well have made it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from multiple attackers. It negatively impacts law-abiding citizens who are involved in shooting competitions or other such activities.
It won’t save lives, no matter how much the Washington Post blames the GOP.