A show of hands: When you first scanned the headline about the horrific, heart-breaking killings at the midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colo., how many of you, when you saw the number of dead and wounded, thought the story was about a suicide bomber abroad, or a battle in a war zone? And then, when you read more carefully, you made the sad realization that this was yet another case of domestic violence perpetrated by a nut because he could?
Though I'm a longstanding gun control advocate who's written often in these pages on the subject, for me, the numbers and the location still prompted temporary cognitive dissonance. Aurora, Colo., I thought? When civilians decide to act on their insanity in America, the number of dead is usually smaller, if only because targets have time to flee. But then I remembered Virginia Tech and Columbine, only a few miles away from last evening's tragedy. And all the public school shootings perpetrated by one student against others. And Gabby Giffords.
I suspect that like many Americans, I'm too enervated by these events to ask the usual questions, chief among them, "Why don't legislators ever do anything to make it harder for these acts to succeed?" But I know the answer, and it's the one I tell people who live abroad when they want to know why America seems to be so full of gun-crazy criminals: It's because a small group of paranoid individuals feel that if they aren't permitted to carry a weapon at all times anywhere, they're in grave danger. It's not even a matter of the financial clout of lobbyists, though that's a factor; it's more that if you're in Congress, your life is easier if you don't have to deal with the unholy wrath that will descend on you if you buck the NRA.
So I'd like to play devil's advocate, and instead pose the question that's implicit whenever the other side takes to the airwaves after mass stranger-on-stranger massacres, when they try to shut down anyone who argues for commonsense gun laws. And that question is: People, when you go to a crowded midnight showing of a likely hit movie, why don't you do it with a loaded weapon in your hands? And why, instead of watching the movie, don't you keep it trained on the exit nearest you, so you'll be ready to shoot to kill when an apparent psychotic in a gas mask steps in and starts killing people? You say it's because you came to watch a movie, not play at being a vigilante? Colorado allows citizens with permits to conceal and carry firearms. Don't you think it's kind of selfish of you to space out and be entertained when anything could happen at any time?
I think back to the Gabby Giffords shooting, and recall a man being interviewed on TV shortly afterwards. He was carrying a gun at the time, and said he'd been a mile away buying cigarettes when the murders took place. He and castigated himself for pausing on route, and thereby delaying his ability to prevent the evil-doer from acting. "Why did I stop?" he asked rhetorically. Never mind that when he arrived at the scene shortly thereafter, he almost fired at rescuers attending to victims before being made aware of what was going on.
My own answer to my hypothetical question of "Why aren't people armed and at the ready at all times?" is that they're busy leading their lives -- shopping for groceries, eating fast food, attending classes, watching a movie -- and expect the police, who're paid to watch out for bad guys, to patrol public places on their behalf. Yes, they can't be everywhere at all times, but ask them, and they'll say that they could be more effective in their jobs if it weren't so easy for every idiot and his grandmother in this country to be packing. But that's not an answer you'll ever get from the NRA leadership, because they're too afraid of what might happen if they ate, or shopped, or watched a movie without a gun within reach. And you'll never hear that from our legislators, because they're too afraid of the NRA.
I thought all your "common sense gun control" would end that?
The trained people are. And it doesn't come at the expense of living life. They shop for groceries, eat fast food, attend classes, and watch movies.
Sincerely, too busy obeying the law in CO
As to the need for anyone to have weapons like the ones Holmes used, I own all three. Why should I have to give up my rights because he abused his? Millions of people abuse alcohol every day, and yes alcohol kills!
Take a look at cars, which I know is not used to directly kill people; and how they are made to go beyond what is needed by anyone. Most sport cars today can exceed 150 MPH. Why would anyone need to go that fast, its illegal! Do you want the Gov. to intervene on you rights to own a sports car?
You ask why shouldn't we repeal the 2nd. I ask then why not all the Bill of Rights. Why just the 2nd. The Bill of Rights was not written by pacifist. It was written by people who took up arms to gain freedom. Unike other revolutionaries our Founding Fathers did not deny us a right they gave themselves. Most revolutionaries in their sense of superiority thought they are the only ones entitled to armed struggle. Those hypocrites often become depots themselves.
It looks like another "Fast and Furious" set-up....
Did he use what was left of his student loans?
He also drove a car, which made it easier for him-- should we outlaw cars? That'd make it harder for the mentally unstable to get from point A to point Murder. There was also a crowd-- should we outlaw crowds? More lives can be saved with better standards of living than any expensive, annoying bantering from either side of gun-control. Think back to some of the tragedies of America-- some of them were made possible by box cutters and fertilizer.
I honestly don't care if everyone or no one has a gun. If everyone is mentally stable, then there is no harm either way. But thinking that outlawing guns is going to turn the insane into the sane, law-abiding citizens is, in its self, insane.
This is a tragedy caused by an insane person doing insane things-- not a soapbox to push agendas.
Alcohol kills exponentially more people every year than firearms. Why aren't you writing articles and comments calling for prohibition...?
There is a reason that First Amendment is freedom of speech and the Second Amendment is the right to carry and bear arms... You don't get one without the other.
Law enforcement RESPONDS to crimes, they don't stop them. Any cop will tell you this.
Every case, around the world, of disarmed citizens has resulted in increased violent crime, and often increased firearm related violent crime. Go google it.
Don't use tragedy for politics, it's completely irrational, and it's in really bad taste.
Your statement that "Every case, around the world, of disarmed citizens has resulted in increased violent crime, and often increased firearm related violent crime", is simply not factual. In 2009, for example, there were 42 related gun deaths in the UK - if you adjusted for population that would work out to be about 200 if it were the United States.
I do believe that the capacity of a firearm and the ability to conceal it upon your person are viable topics for debate on guns. The second amendment was written at a point in time where people used flintlock muskets, black powder, round shot and could effectively fire 3 rounds a minute with significant training. I can dispense a 100-round magazine in a semi-automatic weapons at a rate of 3 trigger pulls a second - 180 rounds a minute. Not to mention that my guns aren't going to stop a tyrannical government equipped with M1A1 tanks, Hellfire Missiles, Predator Drones, Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers, ballistic missiles, Apache Helicopters, F22 Raptors, etc..
Well articulated points. It's a pleasure to have a rational discussion with someone on a forum.
Regarding alcohol (and tobacco), if you factor in violent crimes committed while intoxicated, in addition to DUI accidents, we might be approaching a realistic number to compare. If you factor in health related deaths (alcohol or tobacco) then we have a vastly different story.
Regarding the UK gun related deaths: I'm not sure you can just take the ratio of violent crime in the UK and apply it to the USA. You need to look at the relevant increase in crime, in the specific population (UK, USA, etc.) before and after disarmament for a realistic and relative picture of the effects. The statement that "Every case, around the world, of disarmed citizens has resulted in increased violent crime, and often increased firearm related violent crime" is indeed factual. The UK, Australia, and states within the US. Many of the studies were even done by anti-gun organizations, who didn't like what they found.
The capacity conceal-ability, etc., of a firearm has nothing to do with the second amendment. I'm sure the founding fathers would not require us to give up modern small arm for flintlock technology just because that's what was around when they wrote it. Following that like of reasoning we'd all be relegated to long bows. The principal of the amendment, just like all of them, can and should be relevantly applied to the modern age.
Regarding not being able to stop a M1 Abrams with your small arms: A bunch of farmers (throughout history) did rather well against a tyrannical government with all of the military technology and hardware you mentioned. Guerrilla warfare does not require tanks to fight tanks. (see Vietnam War, Afghanistan, etc. And they had/have small arms from 30 - 50 years earlier.)
You, alone, with your firearms, may not stop a tyrannical government, but 20 or 30 million of you might. And that's the point. (Especially since the state militias have all but completely been disbanded, etc. The design has been compromised, and so the purpose is easily confused.)
The real issue to discuss is how to reduce violent crime, and the answer to reducing violent crime has never been to disarm the greater population to protect against the few violent offenders. It has never worked, once, throughout history. And you can go back as far as you'd like.
The NRA fights for our rights and should be praised for doing so! The simple fact is Holmes was out to hurt people and he would have accomplished this with or without firearms. Why should law abiding folks have to give up there rights because this lunatic did something horrible. Criminals will always have guns, look at Mexico, guns are illegal to own in Mexico and the Drug Cartels rule the country.
Most people, like the person who wrote this article are depending on someone (the police) to protect them and are like sheep! It is denial that turns people into sheep. People don’t want to arm themselves because they are in denial. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up. There is no constitutional right to police protection and they are not obligated to save you!
I'm a firm believer that a ban on guns would reduce the occurrence of these heartbreaking events, but if the yanks are THAT much in love with their pea poppers, fine. Let them keep them. I'll say this, American culture is so deeply entrenched in violence and Hollywood style gun action, that there is little at this point anybody could change that. Just the fact they spend 2.9 million per annum on the pro-gun lobby says a lot about this obsession.
Handguns and shotguns are fair game, whether for CCW or defence of family, it should be even more than sufficient. But under WHAT circumstance would an American citizen need a gun that shoots off a drum at 60 bullets a minute? That's not for hunting, not for sport, and definitely not for defence. That's for manslaughter.
I like my Sporting AR-15 rifle. I do use it for recreational shooting with hi capacity magazines! I participate in competitive shooting events with it and have no intention of hurting innocent people with it!
Remember why the second amendment was written!!!
I have no doubt that the vast majority of American people who own guns are responsible, who use them purely for sport or for self defence.
However when a man like Holmes can purchase these weapons legally, on such short notice, questions need to be answered on whether or not gun laws are too lax.
Had the shooter used, say a revolver, or a handgun, he would have never been able to harm as many people as he did.
As a Canadian, I see absolutely no reason for a citizen to have a personal armoury, but I won't deny the American Constitution. However it is obvious that stronger rules need to be put in place, perhaps a longer waiting time on these powerful semiautomatic weapons.
Effective as of yesterday