Carl Hiassen Was Right. Imagination Can’t Out-Crazy Reality: Gun Nuttery Department
Via Salon, we learn what a Colorado Republican state senator — who took office in the wake of a recall of a Democrat who favored limits on gun magazine capacity — had this to say in support of the bill he introduced to overturn the large magazine ban:
A nearly identical law has already been voted down in the Dem-controlled Colorado state House of Representatives and is certain to fail in the state Senate, which is also controlled by Democrats. But the state Senate held a hearing on Herpin’s bill all the same.
It was during this hearing that Herpin made his unfortunate remarks in response to a question from a Democratic senator on the committee.
“My understanding is that James Holmes bought his 100-round capacity magazine legally,” said Sen. Irene Aguilar. “So, in fact, this law would have stopped James Holmes from purchasing a 100-round magazine. I was wondering if you agree with me.”
“Perhaps James Holmes would not have been able to purchase a 100-round magazine,” Herpin responded. “As it turned out, that was maybe a good thing that he had a 100-round magazine, because it jammed. 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.”
Uhhh.
Once more, I got nothing.
Or rather — I have no idea what must take place in an allegedly sentient being’s mind that would allow that person to say such a thing. My sympathy goes to every friend and family member of those murdered in Aurora, and insulted by Senator Bernie Herpin.
Image: Nicholas Poussin, The Massacre of the Innocents, 1625-1626.
Explore posts in the same categories: Guns, Republican follies, Republican knavery, StupidityTags: Gun Nuts
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
The Inverse Square Blog 
February 13, 2014 at 5:23 pm
Why do you reject fact and common sense?
Larger magazines jam more often. The shooter in Arizona had trouble with his, Aurora Colorado — his jammed.
On the other hand, the Virginia tech murderer used 10 round magazines for both his pistols. Believe more people were killed there then in Aurora Colorado.
February 13, 2014 at 5:30 pm
Thanks for commenting Mr. Boxes. Relying on a jam to limit casualties seems — hell no, is — grasping at straws in this “debate.” But you’re welcome to try.
February 13, 2014 at 5:34 pm
As usual, you set up a straw man and try to debate it. Typical response from an anti-rights cultists.
No one is ‘relying on a jam’ to limit casualities just pointing out the well known. Lives were saved due to the jam.
Name a time where lives where saved by a reduced capacity magazine, eh?
The Senator is pointing out the inescapable — Holmes would not have been stopped even if he had purchased 10 ten round magazines. Why is that a problem for you to understand?
February 13, 2014 at 6:11 pm
(To your second comment)
A) if 100 round mags suck, then why should one object to their banning.
B) You are relying on a jam to justify your sense that a ban on 100 round mags is common sense. On those occasions when the mega-magazine doesn’t jam, you have 100 rounds before your mag change. Obviously.
C) I know I’m not going to persuade you, and you can safely assume the reverse, but if you were trying to have any kind of exchange, the use of the term “anti-rights cultist” ain’t going to facilitate that conversation. Which I think you know. Which means you aren’t here for “facts and common sense” but to wave your whatever around.
Waste of your time and mine, friend.
February 13, 2014 at 6:12 pm
If high capacity magazines are so unreliable, why does the gun manufacturing industry have a market for them?
In short, why are gun owners so stupid as to throw their money into a product they know will not work when they need it to work?
Of course I remember the counter arguments to the clip size limitation in the Assault Weapon’s Ban of 1994 that basically said, if you had a 10 round clip and were surrounded by bad guys, the time it took to reload would get you killed, so you needed the high capacity magazines.
Oh Joy! This argument still exists:
” So with this in mind, here are five good reasons that you should WANT a high capacity magazine.
1. Multiple assailants. Whether on the street or during a home invasion, violent criminals often move in pairs or packs. Realize that you will never shoot as well as your score at the range when you are under the unbelievable stress of a life-or-death encounter. Which would you prefer to have in your magazine in such an event? Ten rounds? Or fifteen or seventeen? Or perhaps even 30?
2. Private citizens always face the threat before the police arrive. Private citizens were on the front line at Tucson, Columbine, and Virginia Tech. Why limit our effectiveness?
You should logically want whatever cops choose to carry. How many cops choose a ten round magazine? If politicians want to hinder us “little people” with a ten round limit, they should also hamper the police with the same limit. Let’s see how far that flies.
In nearly every instance it is not a cop on the “front line” of a violent situation. It is private citizens who must face the “lone gunman” until (and sometimes even after) the police arrive. See Dial 911 and Die. Is the life of a policeman more important than yours?
3. Civil disturbances. Watch the Reginald Denny beating video some time. Review the looting insanity of Hurricane Katrina. You’ve got a crazed mob of ten, twenty, or fifty people headed in your direction. Are ten rounds enough? Might you want fifteen, or seventeen, or even thirty?
Oh, and while you’re at it, perhaps bring from memory those Los Angeles Korean store owners standing guard on the roofs of their businesses with semi-auto AKs during the Rodney King riots. No one messed with those stores, did they? ”
http://jpfo.org/rabbi/five-reasons.htm
February 13, 2014 at 6:42 pm
And if Holmes had been limited to carrying revolvers, he could have also been stopped a lot sooner.
High-capacity magazines are meant to facilitate killing lots of people quickly. If that’s what you are in favor of, just say so.
February 14, 2014 at 7:08 pm
So are cops and the bodyguards of politicians and the rich and famous gonna be held to the same magazine restrictions as well? Or are they more important than everyone else?