Hunter's irrelevant utterances that gangland assassins have used extended magazines since forever, or that Cho and Hasan didn't use them (the standard magazine in Hasan's FN Five-Seven held only 20 cartridges after all), is of no comfort to anyone and marks Hunter as incredibly tone deaf to the emotions surrounding this issue.
Even those who take comfort in the mantra "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" understand that the specter of a mentally ill man intent on mayhem visiting a political gathering armed with a high capacity pistol, machine pistol magazines, and almost 100 cartridges hidden under his coat is a very bad thing. It does not sell, not on either coast, not in the heartland, not among the faithful of any party, and not in the “court of public opinion.” Nor should it. Apart from the bravery demonstrated by those who jumped the shooter when he finally needed to change magazines, there is no upside in this story!
Hunter’s curious claim – that women and the elderly cannot be taught to shoot more effective rifles or shotguns and that a Glock 17 loaded with 33 round machine pistol magazines is a better defensive alternative – is testable. I predict Hunter would be proven wrong, but who cares? The gun is not the problem, remember?
When responsible gun ownership is described as bestowing some freedom from fear of violent attack many of our neighbors and countrymen “get it.” Hunter is apparently sincere and is trying to be helpful, but his sermon is at best written to the choir of faithful fan boys who eagerly await his next sniper novel. The vast majority of Americans who read the Washington Post are bound to look at this ill-advised and ill-timed essay and say “Who the hell is this guy?”
I'll add, "Who is he trying to convince?"