After Saturday's hideous act of gun violence - after every hideous act of gun violence - two groups of political activists immediately began 'politicizing' the day's tragic events. This is not a 'both sides do it' false equivalence diary. Anti-murder activists use such tragedies to point out the necessity of stricter control over needless and deadly weapons; pro-murder activists desperately try to deflect justified criticism of their destructive and ubiquitous toys.
(Yes, I have a bias. Why do you ask?)
As an excellent front page diary pointed out, the weapon Loughner used was a handgun with a high-capacity magazine, allowing him to fire 31 shots without reloading. Such a magazine, which would have been illegal under the Clinton-era assault weapons ban, allowed Loughner to kill and injure 18 people.
As many commenters have pointed out, no one needs a magazine that allows someone to fire 31 shots in a matter of seconds. In fact, with such a weapon, the tragedy could have been even worse; with 31 bullets, he could have killed or injured 31 people, and we are 'fortunate' (in that sick sense) that there were 'only' 18 casualties.
But returning to the Clinton-era weapons ban is not sufficient. Under that law, handguns that can carry up to 10 rounds are legal. With such a weapon, Loughner could have killed or injured ten people. Better than 18? Yes, for a pathetic definition of 'better'. But no one needs to fire 10 shots in a matter of seconds any more than one needs to fire 31.
Follow the argument down the line. How about a six-shot magazine? Is giving a killer the ability to kill 'only' six people before reloading enough of a check on the murder-power of a gun? No. Six lives are still six too much. No one 'needs' to fire six shots in a matter of seconds.
How about three people? Two? One? If a gunman can only kill one person before reloading - ending a human life by a single small motion of one finger - is that enough of a restriction? How many people should a gunman be able to kill at once just to satisfy the gun nuts and their ludicrous belief that 'an armed society is a polite society'?
As many commenters have pointed out, no one needs a magazine that allows someone to fire 31 shots in a matter of seconds. But the pro-murder lobby is strong, strong; even here at the Daily Kos, we have enough gun nuts to put a piece of NRA propaganda (to which I shall not link) on the recommended list. Even though merely banning high-capacity magazines would not have stopped, and would barely even have mitigated, Saturday's murderous attack, the forces of good on this site have focused on the magazine instead of the gun.
No one needs a magazine that allows someone to fire 31 shots in a matter of seconds. No one needs a magazine that allows someone to fire 10 shots in a matter of seconds. No one needs a weapon, no matter how many shots it fires, that can be concealed (legally or illegally) on one's person in a public place. This tragedy did not take place because high-capacity magazines are legal. It took place because handguns are legal.
Dancing around the topic, focusing on little things like magazines and concealed carry laws, speaks to the power the NRA and the gun lobby holds even on a site like this. But what would have stopped Saturday's attack is not a law against high-capacity magazines or concealed carry. What would have stopped Saturday's attack are laws that kept Loughner from obtaining a handgun. Advocating anything less is avoiding the issue.