Thanks for sharing this piece.  I'm not able to find anything in it with which to disagree.  It seems like common sense: do whatever we can to ban, in non-military and non-law enforcement contexts, high-magazine weapons which make it easier for people determined to do so to kill lots of people in a short period of time.   

That isn't to say that if we do this, we should delude ourselves into thinking we have in any way "solved" the problems with guns and violence and unnecessary killing and maiming in our society.  It isn't to say in any way that we should do this, pat ourselves on the back, and call it a day.  Of course we won't be able to entirely do away with murders effectuated with guns, whether of a mass or other nature.  Of course there would be a black market in high-magazine weapons.  Of course there would be many horrific incidents of violence and death even if we could entirely do away with those, brought about through the inappropriate use of handguns and other weapons, as well as in many other ways.  Of course other measures are needed to try to deal with the much larger volume of potentially preventable deaths and maiming made possible by the misuse of handguns, among many other factors.  

But if we can do this--learning from our past experiences and doing it better this time--we should.  I don't see what a valid counter-argument to that can be at this point. 

Word.