Raw Story: A Republican state senator in Colorado stunned the father of one of the victims of the Aurora theater shooting when he claimed that it was “a good thing” that James Holmes had a 100-round magazine.I’m going to give you a chance to let your blood pressure go down. Take all the time you need.
During a Wednesday hearing about overturning the state’s ban on magazines larger than 15 rounds, Democratic state Sen. Irene Aguilar pointed out that Holmes would have never been able to legally buy the arsenal he used to slaughter 12 people and injure 70 others.
“My understanding is that James Holmes bought his 100-round capacity magazine legally,” Aguilar told Republican state Sen. Bernie Herpin. “So in fact, this law would have stopped James Holmes from purchasing a 100-round magazine.”
“I was wondering if you agree with me,” she asked.
“Perhaps, James Holmes would not have been able to purchase a 100-round magazine,” Herpin admitted.
“As it turned out, that was maybe a good thing that he had a 100-round magazine, because it jammed,” he added. “If he had four, five, six 15-round magazines, there’s no telling how much damage he could have done until a good guy with a gun showed up.”
OK? Good. Sen. Bernie Herpin is a moron. Consider:
- Anti-logic: Herpin seems to be suggesting that 100 round magazines are prone to jamming (at least, I think so. It’s hard to make sense of this). If this is true, then Herpin should oppose such magazines as a matter of consumer protection. After all, they’re junk. The last thing a Second Amendment Hero needs is for his gun to jam up while he’s fighting off the mutant pirate army (or whatever the fuck it is you think 100 rounds will protect you from. My imagination fails me). Logic dictates that selling these things as a matter of home defense amounts to false advertising or consumer fraud.
- Anti-math: According to the report, “Of the 76 shell casings found by investigators after the shooting, 65 were fired from Holmes’ .223 caliber assault-style rifle with the 100 round magazine.” Herpin’s arguing that it’s better for intended victims of a mass shooting if the shooter fires off 65 shots if his magazine jams than to fire a mere “four, five, six 15-rounds” uninterrupted. This is the same masterful grasp of math that has Republicans arguing that huge tax cuts for gazillionaires are a great way to reduce the deficit.
The people who call themselves defenders of the Second Amendment do so for the same reason; if they were forced to tell the truth, they’d have to admit that they’re ridiculously soft on crime.