Even though I support our Second Amendment rights, I’ll never understand “gun nuts.” While I own two guns, I don’t have some unhealthy infatuation with them. I meet some people who are literally obsessed with guns. And I don’t mean in a historical context like a collector. I mean in the “I’ve got this big bad killing machine, come and mess with me punk!” Dirty Harry type of idiotic mentality.
I also laugh at the NRA-fueled notion of, “The only way to deal with a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” How draconian can you get? Didn’t our society already have the days of the Wild Wild West? You know, where everyone walked around holstered, shooting out their differences in our city streets?
And let’s be real, more guns don’t make us safer. If more guns made a society safe, being that the United States leads the world in gun ownership, we’d be the safest country on the planet when it comes to gun violence.
Except, it’s the complete opposite. We lead the world when it comes to gun violence. It would seem that more guns make us less safe.
Which brings me to a Colorado hearing concerning overturning the state’s ban on magazines with a capacity of more than 15-rounds, where Colorado State Senator Bernie Herpin actually suggested that it might have been a good thing that the Aurora shooter James Holmes had a 100-round magazine.
No, seriously, that’s what he said.
Democratic State Senator Irene Aguilar said, “My understanding is that James Holmes bought his 100-round capacity magazine legally. So in fact, this law would have stopped James Holmes from purchasing a 100-round magazine. I wondered if you agree with me.”
State Senator Herpin responded by saying, “Perhaps, James Holmes would not have been able to purchase a 100-round magazine. As it turned out, that was maybe a good thing that he had a 100-round magazine, because it jammed. If he had instead had four, five, six 15-round magazines, no telling how much damage he could have done until a good guy with a gun showed up.”
Yes, that’s a Colorado state senator admitting that more rounds equals more potential damage, yet advocating for the overturn of a law banning magazines with capacities of more than 15-rounds because, you know, a 100-round magazine happened to jam in the instance of the Aurora shooting.
If anything, Mr. Herpin’s statement makes for a great argument for the banning of all semi-automatic weapons. After all, if every round has to manually be made ready to fire, wouldn’t that be the safest alternative to prevent mass shootings?
Because the truth is, if James Holmes didn’t have any kind of magazine capacity (say all he had was a shotgun or bolt-action rifle), would he have been able to inflict the harm that he did?
Hell, would he have planned his shooting at all? Could one argue that access to semi-automatic weaponry empowered him to plan such a disgusting act? But let’s not let common sense get in the way of some good right-wing rhetoric.
Though it’s completely believable that a Republican would make this argument, it’s still absolutely ridiculous to base an argument that James Holmes having access to a 100-round magazine was a good thing because in this instance it happened to jam.
But this does serve as a great example of just how asinine many of these “guns rights” lunatics can be when it comes to “protecting their rights” against those of us who actually choose to use common sense.