Apparently because the Norway shooter used standard capacity magazines, we must ban them here (H/T Gabriel Malor). Left unsaid is whether this ban would be for the children or not, but it’s a safe assumption, I think.
I especially like the whining tone they take at the end of the editorial:
There was a brief period of sanity in this country when high-capacity magazines were prohibited as part of an assault weapons ban. That ban expired in 2004; aWashington Post review of Virginia records showed that the number of high-capacity magazines used in crimes jumped dramatically in that state after the ban lapsed. Legislation introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) to ban the sale of high-capacity magazines has been stalled since she introduced it shortly after the Tucson massacre. The terrible events in Norway ought to kick-start the measure.
Ah, yes, that “brief period of sanity … when high-capacity magazines were prohibited…”
Except they were never actually “prohibited.” The sale of new magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds was only allowed to law enforcement and the military, but as long as your magazines were made before the start date of the ban, you could have as many as you wanted. You could even sell them to other people!
No law was going to stop Brevik from perpetrating his massacre; he joined a gun club back in 2005, just in case his plans to buy black market guns elsewhere in Europe fell through and he had to buy his firearms in Norway.
And the UK, everyone’s favorite poster-child for gun control, still can’t stop people from getting automatic weapons. Handguns are banned. Automatic guns are banned. I suppose that makes automatic handguns double banned, and yet they still had one.
The Washington Post has never been interested in letting facts get in the way of shilling for their preferred policies.