Advocacy for NYPD to Boycott Glocks

We all know the true culprit in the Arizona shooting was the Glock pistol with high capacity “clips.” It certainly wasn’t the person wielding the gun and shooting people. That’s why idiots in support of gun control have been attacking Glock so heavily. It seems a new layer of stupidity has arisen with with people advocating the New York Police Department (NYPD) boycott Glock pistols because they sell 30-round magazines to peasants:

“If Glock will not stop selling these magazines to consumers, then the New York City Police Department should start buying the firearms they need from a different company,” Public Advocate Bill de Blasio said.

“The New York Post editorial board has rightly argued that the Glock-manufactured 30-round magazines, like the one used by clearly disturbed Jared Loughner, present an unacceptable risk to human life, and at the same time no justifiable civilian purpose.”

So in a time of budget crisis the NYPD should dump all of their pistols and buy all new guns, parts, retrain officers, and retrain armorers just because Glock does a perfectly legitimate and legal activity of selling magazines of an arbitrary size to peasants (saying civilians isn’t correct as the police are civilians as well).

What I find really stupid is the fact people are blaming the magazine. There are two conflicted reports going around on how the shooting was stopped. Some people are claiming he was tackled when he was in the middle of a reload while others are saying he successfully reloaded but the gun jammed when chambering a new round. Likewise tackling somebody during a reload requires you to already be in very close proximity since reloading a gun is a fast operation. If somebody is more than a few feet away it’s unlikely that they’d be able to close the distance before a shooter was able to get a new magazine into their gun.

If we’re going to blame tools we need to look at other things as well. Has anybody found out what kind of car the Arizona shooter drove? We should probably attack that as well since without it he couldn’t have driven there (if he used public transportation we need to ban that instead). We did the shooter buy his groceries? If he wouldn’t have been able to eat he wouldn’t have been alive and thus couldn’t have performed the shooting, we really should go after his preferred grocery story.