Bob Owens, writing at Confederate Yankee, sees the death of six people and the wounding of thirteen others, including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, as evidence that if the Arizona shooter had a smaller magazine, "the number of dead and wounded could have been far, far higher." Accused Tucson shooter Jared Loughner's case has drawn national attention to the availability of high-capacity magazines since he was able to fire 31 shoots before being stopped as he attempted to reload. Owens parts company with most of the country, including Dick Cheney, in his conclusion that somehow having more bullets made the Arizona shooter less dangerous.
Owens' entire argument boils down to the claim that high-capacity magazines are unreliable and more prone to failure. Apparently, in Owens' mind this means that giving criminals and the dangerously mentally ill high-capacity magazines with more bullets and hoping that they fail before the person is able to shoot them all is better policy than not letting them have high-capacity magazines in the first place. Does this mean Owens thinks the prudent thing to do in the wake of six people being murdered is to base public safety on the expectation of equipment failure? Owens explains by saying:
The more cartridges a magazine holds, the longer the magazine body must be and the longer the spring must travel. This increased movement means that larger magazines are generally more prone to failure. [...]
If Congress wants felons to have more reliable firearms, reinstating the 10-round magazine ban would be the most effective way to do it.
It seems that Owens thinks the way to keep our communities safe is to make sure all criminals have access to high-capacity 30 round magazines and just wait for them to jam during the commission of a crime. Owens' proposal makes as much sense as the Gun Owners America's fight to prevent background checks for criminals, potential terrorists and the dangerously mentally ill.