1 + (33 x 2) ≤ 10

When 20 people were gunned down in Tucson a week ago today, the deranged shooter reportedly was armed with a Glock 19 and two 33-round magazines.

The semi-auto G19's standard-issue mag holds 15 rounds. The extended 33-rounder was developed for the ravenous G18, which is full-auto, but it works just fine with any of Glock's 9mm pistols -- full-size G17, compact G19, even the sub-compact G26.

I can attest that firing a G19 with 33 rounds on tap is a bona fide giggle when ringing gongs gleefully at the range. The weight of 18 extra rounds destroys the heft of an otherwise well-balanced pistol, however, so the jumbo mag is useless to me for serious practice.

It's not exactly concealable, either.

I've already offered my opinion that the Tucson shooting likely will embolden forces bent on disarming all American citizens. Off the bat it looks like they'll call for a ban on so-called high-capacity magazines.

A number of states already limit magazine capacity. Maryland sets the legal maximum at 20 rounds, New Jersey at 15. Four nanny states -- California, Hawaii, Massachusetts and New York -- and the District of Columbia ban any magazine holding more than ten rounds.

And now one murderous nutjob with a pair of 33-round mags may well provide the political impetus for a federal 10-round limit -- that's the disturbing equation. Depending on how strong the wind blows to the left, law-abiding citizens could be placed at an immediate defensive disadvantage, because no law will keep deadly weapons (or high-capacity magazines) out of determined criminals' hands.

As an American, I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. More important -- and yes, there's something more important than the Constitution -- I have a human right to defend myself. Despite the Supreme Court leaving the statutory door open for "reasonable restrictions," that is the more powerful political argument against putting citizens at the mercy of better-armed violent offenders.

Any suggestion that I must rely on law enforcement to defend me, by the way, will be met with one or both of these truisms:

"When seconds count, help is only minutes away."

"I carry a gun because it's easier than carrying a cop."

Prudent gun owners today are taking inventory, just to confirm that they have all the magazines they need. (We can predict that those bought pre-ban would be "grandfathered.") Online firearms-supply retailers know this, of course -- I've already received a handful of e-mail flyers pushing high-capacity mags.

Now that's my kind of post-Tucson opportunism. (And this isn't.)

DPMS Panther Arms reminded me about their typically reasonable prices on Magpul and GI-type mags for the M4/M16/AR-15. Surefire wanted me to know that the 60- and 100-round magazines they've developed for the same platform are "coming soon." (Even if you're not inclined to drop $139-$179 on one of these beauties, the demo video is worth watching.) Natchez Shooters Supplies has good deals on Glock mags, although they seem to have sold out of 33-rounders.

(Natch.)

That's ok -- they're not my thing anyway. I'm happy rolling with 15+1, but my government should stay the hell out of the business of telling me that I can't own one (or more than one).