Ruth Marcus, writing for the Washington Post this morning, pens one of the more reasonable anti-gun columns to follow the Tucson Massacre.

Her premise is that a 10 round clip should be enough for a handgun. What’s the problem with going back to the 10 round federal assault weapon ban limit? It would likely have prevented at least a few of the casualties in Saturday’s shooting. In essence, a (purportedly) reasonable restriction on magazine capacity could possibly have mitigated the carnage. This is not an unreasonable position, despite what many gun rights folks (including possibly some here) would have you believe.

‘Puter, however, disagrees with Ms. Marcus entirely. Since Ms. Marcus’ column is reasonable and respectful, ‘Puter will attempt to offer a similarly respectful and reasonable rebuttal.

First, Americans have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms (and likely to concealed carry, once the Supreme Court gets around to affirming it), subject to reasonable restrictions. As Heller was only recently (in judicial terms) decided, the concept of reasonable restrictions has not yet been fleshed out, so ‘Puter will attempt to do so.

‘Puter believes it is not reasonable to restrict magazine capacity. There is no causal effect between magazine size and the likelihood that a given weapon would be used in illegal activity. In fact, legally acquired weapons are less likely to be used in illegal activities. Heck, ‘Puter’s willing to bet that even if automatic weapons were re-legalized, the likelihood of such a legally acquired weapon being used in a crime would be no higher than the current rate. To ‘Puter, that is the first hurdle: will the restriction imposed prevent the bad outcome?

Here, the answer is no. Mr. Loughner would have used a handgun had the magazine available been 10 rounds. The magazine capacity may limit the damage ultimately caused, but would not prevent any damage in the first instance, and the postulated damage mitigation is not significant enough in the aggregate to restrict the Constitutional right in the aggregate. In the case of a Constitutional right, ‘Puter believes the burden on the party wishing to impose the restriction on the right is heavy. This proposal does not meet that burden.

Second, Ms. Marcus proceeds from a flawed premise. That is, it is the availability of high capacity magazines that is primarily responsible for the tragedy. ‘Puter disputes that. The primary responsibility for the shooting lies with one person only: the mentally ill Jared Loughner. He bought the gun, bought the bullets, formulated a plan and carried out that plan.

‘Puter rather thinks revisiting the mental health laws is a better place to start. ‘Puter understands that in the past, such laws may have been used to institutionalize some people who did not require it. However, simply putting demonstrably mentally ill people on the streets has been a a catastrophe. One need look no further than the burgeoning homeless population. Does anyone seriously think the schizophrenic and psychotic are better off living under bridges in urine soaked rags muttering to themselves than they would be in a decently run institution? If civil commitment were easier, it is likely that a young man who exhibited aberrant and frightening behavior on numerous occasions, sufficient to come to the attention of law enforcement, would have been in treatment or institutionalized. That would have prevented the shooting in its entirety, not merely mitigated the damages.

Third, ‘Puter would like to substitute “second and third trimester abortions” for “high capacity magazines” in Ms. Marcus’ analysis. Both the right to bear arms and the right to abortion are Constitutional rights, leaving aside for the moment that only one of the two actually appears in the Constitution itself. Logically, both should be subject to a similar standard for limitation of that right.

Here’s the argument: it is undeniable that millions of innocent babies would have the opportunity to be born and likely live a full life if second and third trimester abortions were banned in all cases except where competent medical evidence shows the life of the mother is in danger, with an exigent circumstances exception. This would save many more lives than a high capacity magazine ban. In 2006, the number of abortions in the United States was somewhere between 800,000 and 1,200,000. By contrast, in the United States in 2006, there were slightly more than 30,000 gun related deaths, even including suicides and accidents. Even assuming a full ban on all firearms outright (and further assuming that there would be no firearms deaths related to illegal weapons), a ban on second and third trimester abortions would have a greater life-saving impact. ‘Puter’s conclusion would be true even if only as few as 3.75% of annual abortions would be prevented by the theoretical abortion restrictions.

Does any reader seriously believe that a liberal would, under any circumstances, agree to such restrictions on abortion without it being imposed upon them against their will (i.e., by legislative or judicial fiat)? If not, then why should gun rights advocates be held to any different standard?

Although ‘Puter believes Ms. Marcus is incorrect in her conclusions, it is refreshing to read an anti-gun column that actually does not start from the premise that the right to keep and bear arms is illegitimate. So, thanks for that Ms. Marcus.

'Puter

Always right, unless he isn’t, the infallible Ghettoputer F. X. Gormogons claims to be an in-law of the Volgi, although no one really believes this.

’Puter carefully follows economic and financial trends, legal affairs, and serves as the Gormogons’ financial and legal advisor. He successfully defended us against a lawsuit from a liquor distributor worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid deliveries of bootleg shandies.

The Geep has an IQ so high it is untestable and attempts to measure it have resulted in dangerously unstable results as well as injuries to researchers. Coincidentally, he publishes intelligence tests as a side gig.

His sarcasm is so highly developed it borders on the psychic, and he is often able to insult a person even before meeting them. ’Puter enjoys hunting small game with 000 slugs and punt guns, correcting homilies in real time at Mass, and undermining unions. ’Puter likes to wear a hockey mask and carry an axe into public campgrounds, where he bursts into people’s tents and screams. As you might expect, he has been shot several times but remains completely undeterred.

He assures us that his obsessive fawning over news stories involving women teachers sleeping with young students is not Freudian in any way, although he admits something similar once happened to him. Uniquely, ’Puter is unable to speak, read, or write Russian, but he is able to sing it fluently.

Geep joined the order in the mid-1980s. He arrived at the Castle door with dozens of steamer trunks and an inarticulate hissing creature of astonishingly low intelligence he calls “Sleestak.” Ghettoputer appears to make his wishes known to Sleestak, although no one is sure whether this is the result of complex sign language, expert body posture reading, or simply beating Sleestak with a rubber mallet.

‘Puter suggests the Czar suck it.