July 24, 2012
-
Lesson from the Batman Shooting
In case you’ve been living under a rock for the last 48 hours, you’ve heard of the shooting in Aurora, Colorado at The Dark Knight Rises premier, in which James Holmes killed 12 and injured 58. And of course, in times like these people grasp at who or what is to blame. Of course, in the immediate minutes after the attack there was no lack of people blaming Islamic militants. You could be Louie Gohmert, who claims that this shooting was due to the fact that we no longer have mandatory prayer in school and other signs of a growing secular culture. There are those that think that the comic book movies themselves caused this neuroscience student to shoot people.
Then there are the people that worry about exactly the wrong thing after a tragedy like this:
Personally, I’m not going to speculate about why this person did what he did. Nor am I going to give a rat’s ass about whether or not this will affect ticket sales of a movie that will still set box office records. What I will comment on is a lesson we should learn from this, and it’s a lesson we should have learned before, time and again.
In the last two decades, mass shootings seem to have become an epidemic, and it’s only gotten worse, especially in the last few years. We look at these shootings: Columbine, Virginia Tech, Congresswoman Giffords, and now Aurora, Colorado – and we see tragedy. And we should. These are tragedies. But we cry about it for a few days, then apparently forget, the news of dozens dead overshadowed by a celebrity overdose or an sports team underdog making a spectacular win. It’s a tragedy, but what are we supposed to do about it? So we move on.
What’s completely overlooked is the fact that these crimes were committed by completely legal firearms. In this latest shooting, Holmes used this gun, the AR-15, the civilian version of the military’s M-16, which can carry 100 rounds.
And the question we should be asking ourselves instead of why he did it is how it was perfectly legal for him to own this gun. Holmes walked into that theater wearing perfectly legal full-body bulletproof armor, carrying four legally purchased handguns and armed with six thousand rounds of ammo purchased legally online.
What does this AR-15 from Aurora, the extended clip from Arizona, the two semi-automatics in Virginia Tech… what do all of these have in common? They were all legally purchased after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban lapsed in 2004. What else do they all have in common? There is no reason for one person to own these things unless their intent is to shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
You don’t use an AR-15 with 100 rounds to shoot deer. You don’t need 30 rounds in your 9mm for home defense. And because of Virginia’s adamant pro-gun lobby, there was a giant gap between their laws and federal laws mandating that people like the shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, from buying guns after being deemed violently mentally ill.
People are crying out that our time of mourning is not a time of politics. But it’s only a few days later and we’re already forgetting about this incident. The time for pointing out that there is no reason for guns of this type to be legally sold – used for hurting people and nothing else – is now.
One hundred thousand people in America are shot every year. Three people are killed every HOUR. Since Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in 1968, over one million Americans have been killed by gunfire.
Comments (95)
I saw guns like these at Walmart, ffs.
I knew you would say something about gun control. I’m guessing you support the UN arms ban?
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - I don’t support their arms ban, but I think a bare foot ban would be a good idea.
When Joe and I first moved into our home, we made the decision to purchase a single firearm for home defense only. Its secured in a safe in Joe’s night stand and has only been removed to go to the range so that we both feel comfortable firing it should the need arise. No one else has even seen our gun, let alone handled it. And when finances permit, I’ll be purchasing another small weapon to keep in my night stand as an added line of defense should Joe become incapacitated. But that’s it, and neither one of us carries the gun we currently own with us wherever we go, and it makes me supremely nervous when I see people carrying firearms in public. Why? The vast majority of people do not know how to properly handle a gun in that type of situation, and you could easily hurt someone other than your intended target. When Joe and I went grocery shopping yesterday I saw at least two people open carrying loaded firearms, and I did everything I could to stay as far away from them as possible. And no telling how many people had concealed weapons.
Since we’re talking about the shooting in Colorado, lets look at it in that situation. It was a dark movie theater with hundreds of people panicking and running for the doors as fast as they can, and the chance that your shots could hit an unintended target is extremely high. The people around you don’t know whether you are an accomplice or trying to take out the original shooter, so the chances of you getting shot at is high. Not to mention the fact that Holmes (at least from the pictures I’ve seen) is a relatively small guy, so even if you were to hit him, the likelihood that the bullet would pass through him and hit someone behind him is high as well. All those factors combined would make for an extremely bad situation, and I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I knew that someone else got hurt/died at my hands.
As far as the guns he purchased legally, it scares me that he was able to purchase them as easily as he did. My brother owns an AR-15 with the extended mag, and I’ve never been comfortable handling it. Its an incredibly difficult gun to fire in a range situation, which is the only place I’ve even attempted to fire it, so the fact that Holmes was able to handle it in a dark movie theater with people running to get away from him is terrifying. The extended mags on the handguns is disturbing as well, and the fact that he was able to purchase them at all is disgusting. There is NO reason to have that many shots per mag, other than what you said. Anyone that owns a hand gun should be able to hit their target with a regular mag, and if they can’t then they shouldn’t be firing a gun in the first place because they are a danger not only to themselves but the people they say they are trying to protect.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - only functionally retarded people think that there is no correlation between our lax gun control laws and the disproportionate levels of gun-related violence compared to other first world countries. It requires unfathomable double think and/or willful ignorance.
Also, why is it that every time someone even mentions the prospect of making more reasonable gun control policies, gun advocates automatically assume that people want to prohibit all gun ownership? You can have stricter regulations that effectively keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill without banning all guns. It’s not hard at all to imagine such policies.
We can’t have rational discussions about these issues because gun advocates are so irrationally hyper sensitive and self-centered that they won’t concede an inch for fear that they will lose all their guns. It’s not rational and it has no basis in reality.
I never understood why people think that the solution to gun violence is to have MORE guns. There’s tons of empirical evidence to show that developed countries with strict gun control laws have drastically lower rates of gun-related deaths. But I guess Americans just don’t want to hear it.
Timothy McVeigh proved long ago that a mass murderer will always overcome logistical problems. This guy, who apparently booby trapped his apartment, would have, too.
Thank you for being one of the only voices of common sense I’ve seen since this tragedy has occurred. I just don’t understand how anyone could think allowing even easier access to guns would somehow would help combat these types of people. I also think it’s pretty arrogant for anyone who isn’t properly trained for these situations to surmise that if they were in a similar situation they would be able to react calmly and accurately. That’s something I’ve been seeing a lot on the internet at least. “If I were there I would’ve taken him out” type of talk.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - Would you believe it is possible to support gun control laws without supporting a complete ban? I know it’s difficult, but give it a try.
Regulating mentally ill folks has lots of problems. I’d rather work on regulating paperless immigrants.
Some reports say that the 100 bullet clip jammed and that is why the massacre was not greater. It is insanity to allow ammo clips to be so high. Also information on how to make them should be censored too.
A standard legal AR-15 mag is different for every state. There really is no standard. In Minnesota, it’s 5 rounds. The 100 round drum he had isn’t the usual for every AR-15 and it isn’t even a good choice for that rifle because of jamming issues. As for needing 30 rounds for your 9mm, actually yes, you might. My dad is in law enforcement and he has told me of multiple occurrences where cops were shooting a large drunk guy who was shooting at them and the ten round 9mm clip didn’t stop the guy and he managed to kill the cops. I would never recommend a 9mm for home defense or anything else. Go with a .40 or .45. It’s not about needing to kill the intruder, it’s about the weapon having the kinetic energy to knock them down.
If this Holmes guy had decided to go into the theater with homemade pipe bombs with nails and crap in them, the death toll would have likely been everyone in that room. Honestly, he could have gone a much more deadlier route. I’m not saying that what happened wasn’t tragic or terrible. But banning guns isn’t the answer.
@firetyger - [As for needing 30 rounds for your 9mm,
actually yes, you might. My dad is in law enforcement and he has told me
of multiple occurrences where cops were shooting a large drunk guy who
was shooting at them and the ten round 9mm clip didn't stop the guy and
he managed to kill the cops.]
My arguments are entirely for public citizens, not law enforcement. I understand the need for their use of more extreme firearms. They have to deal with the people who decide to use hundred round AR15s on civilians, or gang members carrying Tech-9s. It’s not a private citizen’s job to confront these people. But if one were to approach a citizen with one of these weapons, I can’t see the situation improving for that citizen by having an assault rifle instead of a simple handgun.
I ask, why are assault weapons even sold to the public? And then I ask why was it so easy for this guy to get one.
Watch this guy, he is smart, and he’s going to play the insanity card. The dyed red hair, the vacant stare…I hope your American judge and jury are not fooled.
I’m Canadian, but I say kill him. I wish we had the death penalty here.
The gun control debate is extremely difficult because every NRA member (and their grandmas) have statistics that will “back” their claims. It really comes down to bias since it is easy to argue one way or another. However, the arguments against gun control are entirely over-simplistic. Its somewhat of a complex issue that can’t be solved with simple slogans, poor analogies, or statistics without proper context.
What’s also odd is the total failure to even frame the discussion correctly. Bring up gun control and you might get a (misguided) rant on the 2nd amendment (as if the 2nd amendment is the singular absolute law in the country). At which point you have to wonder if they actually know what is meant by “gun control”. (Gun control =/= Ban on all guns) (I myself plan to get a firearm at some point in the future.)
“People are crying out that our time of mourning is not a time of politics.”
Ironically, the statement to avoid the political aspect here is at heart a political statement…mostly perpetuated with a political agenda in mind. The sentence “This is a time for mourning, not politics.” actually means “Do NOT try to reform my gun laws buddy!”.
@DreamsEscapeMe - Very good and unbiased post as a owner of a firearm. It’s baffling when I hear things like “Things would have been very different if I was there with my gun” or “Things would have been different if everyone in the theater was packing”. To the first scenario…I totally agree….if you are Jason Bourne (ok maybe also Ethan Hunt). Ok, I’m exaggerating, but the point being, you would have to have a good amount of training to deal with such a chaotic situation. The situation was actually even worse than you described. I believe there was tear gas in the air (at the least smoke, but most articles say tear gas) and also Holmes was apparently wearing full body armor (including helmet, throat protector, protective leggings, etc). So to think you could have accurately taken down the guy in a dark room in the midst of all the people running and screaming, with tear gas in the air, and the guy being basically covered head to toe in armor and armed with an AR-15 …and doing so without killing anyone else in the theater….that’s insane. Then to think its actually a good idea if every single one of those panicking people had their own gun??? That’s beyond ridiculous.
great post.
the AR-15 and clip he bought fires off 50 to 60 rounds per minute. police say there would have been more carnage but the rifle jammed. no civilian needs that kind of firepower for hunting. nobody thought it necessary to alert authorities about someone buying 6,000 rounds of ammo online. those two purchases alone should have set off alarms. i hear people asking if people like this shooter can be spotted for strange behavior and reported before something like this happens. it’s a reasonable question but the answer is, most of the time they can’t.
Louis Gohmert’s is a ridiculous knee-jerk solution perhaps more in the Aurora shooting than in others. the theater was dark, filling up with smoke with people trying to escape the smoke burning their skin and of course from the shots being fired. police experts say time and time again, the worst thing that could happen in a confusing situation like this is for people to start pulling out guns and shooting. the question was brought up after the massacre on the Long Island Railroad. i believe that occurred in 1994. some people said there should have been others carrying guns on the train but police involved back then said they were glad there were none because the potential for mayhem and an even worse situation with more casualties is created.
a couple of points i heard made today:
people bring up the 2nd Amendment as a protection of our right to bear assault weapons. there’s no way Benjamin Franklin imagined incidences like the one this past weekend with this kind of firepower. they had muskets in those days. what about the right of U.S. citizens to go to the movies, walk on school campuses, malls or anywhere for that matter. is their solution that we all should strap on assault rifles to go to the movies and btw, wear full body armor as this shooter did. i don’t want to go to a movie even if i know people are carrying pistols. how long will it be before we hear about people breaking out a weapon because someone won’t stop talking during a movie? should we all be made to pass through body scanners to get into a movie as we do to get on planes as a counter measure in order to protect the right to own an assault weapon? how many rights are we being asked to give up so sick people can get their hands on them and mostly white supremacist militias can play war in some back woods?
another point i heard…we hear people argue a ban on assault weapons, weapons developed btw for the sole purpose of killing people, will take away our freedom as a nation. there are many free nations outside of the United States that have strict gun laws. the people in those nations are still free and one might argue they are more free than we in the United States for having those gun laws in place and particularly for having bans on the sale of assault weapons. i’ve lived in one of those countries and spent considerable time in a few others. there is freedom in the places i’ve been. they hold elections just like we do. what we should be pondering is the freedom of those injured and killed this past weekend. where are their freedoms and their right to pursue happiness now?
what is happening is the the most powerful lobby in Washington, the NRA has been fear mongering, convincing the gullible the government is going to take our freedom away. they are also telling people Obama plans to take our guns away in his 2nd term. that’s hogwash. in fact President Obama loosened federal restrictions on carrying guns when he signed a bill allowing people to carry firearms into federal parks.
another solution i’ve heard is…but first let me say something. police arrived at the scene 90 seconds after the shooting started. in that time the shooter had the gun power to shoot 70 people, 12 of whom died and some of whom are still in critical condition. one of the latter is a woman. there is a bullet still lodged in her neck. she will probably be paralyzed for the rest of her life but it’s even worse for her. her 6 year old daughter was killed in the shooting. i don’t know how this woman will, should she live, cope. she simply went to the movies. with that in mind, back to this solution i’ve heard. “shit happens. nothing we can do about it but we can’t ban assault weapons.”
as Ron Reagan, son of President Reagan said on Friday, fine if we want to bear arms but let’s be adult about it.
I already live in a state that has a long-standing ban on extended detachable magazines. In California you cannot make a same-day purchase on any firearm (including rifles and shotguns), magazine capacity is capped at ten rounds for all weapons, no detachable magazines are permitted for non-featureless semi-automatic rifles (Holmes’ AR-15 would have to have a fixed magazine or be fitted with a ‘bullet button’ in CA), you have to pass a Handgun Safety Certification exam to be eligible to buy a handgun (even though the test is a joke), and thirty-round plus magazines are prohibited for sale or possession (unless you can prove that you purchased them prior to the California Assault Weapons Ban of 1989). Also despite this being a “shall issue” CCW state, the odds of you getting permission to carry a concealed firearm in any urbanized/non-rural county is almost nil.
I own a firearm myself and it was purchased solely for home defense purposes. I’m also a Second Amendment proponent and would never voluntarily surrender my right to defend my home and property. However I have no problem with tighter restrictions on firearm purchases, doing away with same-day weapons purchases, requiring more stringent background checks on prospective buyers (including mental health checks), and restricting the sale of high capacity magazines. I am also an advocate for making ALL states require firearms training and safety certification from a DOJ-licensed instructor before receiving a concealed carry permit. Letting every yahoo with a handgun carry them around without proper firearms training does not make me feel safe, even as a firearms owner. The last thing I want is to get accidentally shot by some guy with a Rambo complex who thinks that carrying a handgun on his hip automatically makes him a qualified operator.
@wizexel22 - I forgot about the gas that was making it even more difficult to see, thanks for reminding me. The “if I’d been there” comments are probably the most disturbing I’ve heard to be honest.
@GodlessLiberal - They don’t make 9mm mags that hold 30 rounds as an aside. But I am speaking about regular people needing that much ammo. Not just cops. Cops arrive on the scene after the fact.
Back when my husband was deployed to Iraq, I would come home to my apartment and find my TV turned on, window shades moved, and other small strange things that had me thinking I was losing my mind. One morning I decided to stay home and sleep in late when normally I would be out running errands. I was topless since I was sleeping in bed and I was breast feeding the baby. I had a baby monitor in her room and the listening end next to my bed. While laying there dozing with G, I heard someone fumbling with a key in the lock of my front door. The deadlock clicked and the door opened and closed. I heard someone walk around in my kitchen and turn off the lights. They then walked to my daughters room where I could hear them walk about to her bed where the baby monitor was. By this point I had wrapped myself in a blanket and had opened my bedroom door the rest of way and started yelling “Who is that?” They hurried back out the front door and -locked- it on their way out. So they made it obvious to me that they had a key. I spoke with management and they told me that there were no scheduled maintenance visits or anything to my part of the building. I’d never heard anyone call out “Maintenance” anyways. I filed a police report after that. The cop told me I was incredibly lucky. If the person had actually wanted to harm me and my baby, he would’ve been able to do whatever he wanted to me because I didn’t have a weapon for defense. The dumbest part was I had to pay maintenance to replace my lock. They wouldn’t do it for free because I couldn’t prove it was a former tenant.
The very look of an AR-15 is imposing. Same as a shotgun. A handgun is imposing as well, though not quite as much, depending on the criminal. I should be able to defend myself and my child with either a handgun or a rifle. I’m not saying I need a 100 round drum or grenades. But to take away my right to defend myself and my family just because one psycho kills twelve people isn’t sound logic.
Ever fly anywhere these days? Take off your shoes, throw away your water bottle, full body scan. You could be flying for 12 hours or a taking little 30 minutes hop, they don’t care. Gotta keep the bombs off the planes. Bombs kill people. That is their only purpose.
We do everything we possible can to make it safe to fly, how about making a few other places in America safe? Like theaters and schools? How about making it harder for criminals to get the weapons that kill the most people? We’ve made murder illegal, yet we sell guns like candy. You got money, you can get a gun.
Handguns are used for protection, rifles are used for hunting, what are assault weapons used for? Assault, pure and simple. I posted the querry on my blog: Give me one legitmate use for assault weapons. I got alot of flack, crazy gun talk, stories about invading Germans in WWII, but no one answered my question. Because there is no legitimate use for assault weapons.
Assualt weapons kill people. That is their only purpose. Ban ‘em.
Are you suggesting a war on guns? Gee, I wonder how well that would work. Sometimes the horse is out of the barn and up in the mountains. You aren’t getting that horse back. Let everyone carry.
@firetyger - Do you defend your family with an assault weapon? No? Then you’d be OK with a ban on assault weapons only, yes?
If you answered no, tell me why we should continue to arm crazy people with mass murder weapons. Tell me why assault weapons should be legal. I really don’t get it.
I like the point you are making. The firearms in question are an important part of gun control.
Well said. This is exactly my point as well.
@TheSutraDude - Your comment is right on. I just cannot understand how some people keep saying that there won’t be freedom if guns are controlled. I just cannot understand from where they get that notion. It is obvious that the NRA who controls the Republican party want to control everything and would put any stupid notion for others to follow. There are so many other countries that have gun control and don’t have violence like the US
Dear Krisko,
I live in L.A. and I deliberately steered clear of all news. I don’t watch TV news anyway (stopped on 9/11/01) and even “stayed off” the internet pretty much over the weekend. Your image could of been “ripped” from the Times business section site. There were all the usual suspects writing essentially the same essay (insert tragedy du jour here). Even worse than the “bidness” news. (whew Hollywood needlessly worried after all) is the memorials to the victims, and the endless speculation about the shooter. Tragedy to newsworthiness to 15 minutes of fame to what’s on next.
In my attempt to steer away from what has already been endlessly written, I have been interested in articles such as this. Your point is well taken. (And is well taken whenever these kinds of acts occur, which seem to be more and more like clockwork as I age.) Human nature is such that man tends to kill himself when he gets the chance. Guns are easily available. People who might kill people can get guns pretty easy, and it looks like in this case, the guy got the guns right before he went on his rampage, as part of the premeditation.
There should be stricter limits on the types of guns sold, and possibly there should be some kind of database so law enforcement could more easily spot trouble. But with any “controls” come protests, and those who will think ‘their” rights are being slighted. The “wild west” hasn’t ever been tamed, if you stop to think about it.
Michael F. Nyiri, poet, philosopher, fool
The vice squad out here in L.A. arrested 72 year old comedian Fred Willard the other day for an “indecent act” in, get this, a Porn theater. (Apparently we still have a couple on Hollywood Blvd even in the internet age! I feel sorry for Fred. He denied any “wrongdoing”) The cops were making a planned “sweep” of the theater! There’s also a study in the budget for a look at a “precrime” unit like in Minority report. that’s going to be stepping on somebody’s toes, I’ll predict. Could it “target” something like Aurora. Probably….not.
I’m like you and am not for a full gun ban, but ban on certain type of guns like assault weapons. There really is no reason for a civilian to own an assault rifle.
@firetyger - So if all the bad guys switched to pipe bombs, then what good are your guns?
He is a pretty smart guy. So even if the 100 round mag was unavailable because it was illegal, he could have just purchased it online from another country. He could have also converted the mag to hold a 100. Again, we are told he was pretty smart and people with average intelligence can do these things.
The funny thing is that even though I joke about both sides of this issue, I actually support every gun control legislation I have ever seen. But I realize it won’t work. But I still support it. There are already too many guns here. What you need now is to eliminate all guns. I support that. I am not sure you could get this by the American public who apparently believe that a gun is an important part of their freedom.
Actually there is plenty of reason for us to own assault rifles. We have the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from our own government should the need arise. That being the case, we should have at least remotely compatible weaponry to that that would be used against us.
Taking away everyone’s guns because this guy, who had a perfectly clean record before hand, obviously went crazy, is absolutely ridiculous. By this logic, we should have stopped flying airplanes permanently after 9/11.
The fact is, criminals are still going have weapons whether the government makes it illegal or not. It’s no different than drugs, or prostitution. Government regulation is NOT always the answer and it certainly isn’t here.
I dont think that adding more guns or taking guns away from society would cause any change in how things happen. if people have enough desire to do something, nearly nothing will stop them. putting more guns out there would only increase the chances that psychopaths would be able to obtain weapons that could be used to kill. and fewer guns would only mean less people would be able to prevent any circumstance from elevating. neither will help. there are flaws in both situation. I do think though that there is no reason to own semi-auto weapons. I have shot semi-auto assault rifles that my father owns, and I can say that I enjoy blowing things up with bullets. but other than entertainment, they really serve no purpose. how many times are you going to just happen to have that AK-47 in your bag when something is going down? it might help if your house is getting broken onto. but a 12 gauge will work just as good for that situation. maybe more trained people who are allowed to have concealed firearms might help as well. I know a guy who was in the navy who has a gun on him every second of every day as protection. he said that he will probably never get the chance to use it for protection, but he is never going to be careful about that.
Agreed. Well said.
I’m glad we can’t legally own guns in my country.
How many comments above me have tried to state that an “armed populace is a safe populace”? I haven’t bothered to look…
The common argument I hear is the same from the (surprise, surprise) Republican senator. He wants everyone packing, that way someone coulda Dirty Harry’d the perp before he could kill too many folks. Right….. cos everyone carrying would be a fully-trained, combat-experienced, cool-headed sharpshooter, by mere viture of owning a gun. No one at all would have panicked and fired wildly, fumbled their gun and had it go off on the poor sod sat next to them. The gunmen, when confronted with an armed audience, would not have started trying to mow down even more of his (now threatening) opponents as possible. It would in no way have descended into an uncontrolled, hysteria-induced bullet-ridden blood bath because freely being allowed to possess a gun automatically turns everyone into level-headed marksmen.
As for “less guns making little difference…” I live in Japan.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/
I’m just saying…
@coolmonkey - Hopefully you’ll be able to shoot him before he throws them into the room. It’s better than being completely defenseless.
@MiDarkLyfe - Assault weapons are no different than any other rifle. Just because you put a flash suppressor on a rifle doesn’t make it more dangerous. Just because you put a pistol grip on a rifle doesn’t make it more dangerous. An AR-15. .308, and a .223 are all the same rifle simply with different aesthetics. They all fire the same round, with the same power, and same accuracy. Which platform you use depends on what is more comfortable for you to handle. I personally intend to buy an AR-15 in the future. Rather than buying a pistol for home and a long rifle for hunting, I can get both needs met with an AR-15. Saves me money.
And I’m not talking about fully automatic weapons, which are already illegal. I’m talking about assault weapons as the government defines them.
Good post with very valid points. Assault weapons are exactly for that. There is no need for citizens to have these in their homes. What next? Flame throwers and anti tank missiles?
@coolmonkey - gun related deaths may go down, but murder goes up. I guess it’s ok as long as it isn’t murder by gun?
Killing people is illegal. The laws against murder don’t stop them. Why would gun laws? Oh, wait, they don’t. I guess gun laws would have stopped Mr. Holmes from booby-trapping his apartment? Gun control laws did a lot of good for the 52 people killed in the London Subway bombings, didn’t they?
The fact of the matter is, when someone as unstable as Holmes, Loughner, Cho, or Harris and Klebold wan to kill someone, they will. (Also, none of the guns in the Columbine shootings were legally obtained by the shooters)
@UTRow1 - It’s funny that you have to say “western countries” because you know full well there are plenty of countries with stricter gun control measures as well as gun bans which are heavily crime ridden. Look at what a wonderful place Mexico is with all it’s gun control. The problem with you liberals is that you want to crack down on law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals. A criminal doesn’t care about your gun bans, he’s going to get his guns anyways from the black market. It’s also worth noting that in Switzerland they have more relaxed gun controls, and in some parts the even require people to have guns, and their crime rate is a good deal lower than ours.
Also, there is a right wing solution to this. Require people to have guns, especially women. Penn Jillette suggested that we make a law requiring all women to carry pink guns in their purses. This would effectively end rape. In any event, if everyone, or even if one or two people in the theater had guns how far do you think the shooter (assuming it was really only one guy) would have gotten?
Actually no, it’s the left who is sensitive, my people are pragmatic. In any event, the best thing to do is split the country into left wing states and free states, because our views and needs are too disparate for this to work.
@grim_truth - The leadership on the left wants more gun control so that they can bring about their totalitarian police state with less resistance. I’m saying let us have guns, and that way when they try to round us up and put us in concentration camps we will at least be able to go down shooting.
@Relic47 - the government has them.
@TheTheologiansCafe - If by eliminating all guns you literally mean ALL guns in the world, including government weapons, then I would be fine with that. I own a couple swords and knives so I can still put up a good fight if anyone comes after me. But if you are talking about taking the guns away from citizens but government still having them then I have to object to that sharply. That would just make it all the easier for them to round us up and put us in prison camps for any arbitrary reason, and I would rather be able to put up a fight if they come after us for those purposes.
@moss_icon - If everyone had guns then the guy would not have gone in there in the first place, and if he did, then he would have been able to shoot far less people. In the past every household did have a gun. That was how they were able to get rid of the English overlords back in the day. The reason why left wing governments want to take away people’s guns is to prevent something like that from happening to them.
@DEISENBERG - That is a slippery slope. I think what is needed is a right wing solution, like requiring people to carry guns. Think about it. If you have a community where the people are known to carry guns then criminals are far less likely to go there to engage in robbery, burglery, rape, or a mad shooting.
@firetyger - One can imagine all sorts of scenarios. For example, if Holmes had gone in with a nuclear bomb, not only would all of the people in the theater have been killed, but so would most of Denver. Isn’t it possible to discuss some forms of control of types of guns and ammunition without banning guns? Is such a discussion outside the realm of possiblity?
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - Assuming the shooter was thinking rationally, maybe. But many criminals are not rational. A guy who wants to shoot up a bunch of folks will probably not be so reasonably-minded as to think “hey, if they’re armed I might die too.” In fact, many such crimes end in suicide, survival is often not a high priority for the gunman (this case was an exception in that it didn’t end in suicide, but it’s pretty common.) It’s still too early to say just where this guy’s head was at when he did what he did. But I have a hard time believing someone in that frame of mind would be so rational.
I also don’t buy the “protection from government” line. I have a hard time believing any government would really care about the personal firearms the populace carries, considering the fire-power at their disposal. Maybe it could have been of some effect back in post-colonial times, but these days it seems a moot point. Any force that controls the largest military machine in the modern world is not going to care about Uncle Joe packing a shot-gun. And sure, maybe – just maybe - the common folks could put together some kinda “people’s militia,” should they be smart and cool-headed enough to (and I really don’t think enough of them are.) Still not much of a threat to the US military, either way.
Deterrence Theory is all well and good, until someone does something stupid. And human beings are notoriously stupid, especially when panicked. You have untrained people packing – people with no combat experience largely unaccustomed to high-pressure, intense situations – and you give them all the power, none of the responsibility. Put people under even a little stress and they are wont to panic & over-react; tempers flare, they get incensed and unreasonable – and it seems to me the American people, these days more than ever, have proven themselves especially incapable of maintaining cool and reasonable heads! Now add firearms to that already combustible mix and the additional sense of power, confidence and bravado they give us psychologically. People are not gonna hold their tempers. They are not gonna rationally think “hey, that guys packing too so I better calm down.” They are gonna act on passion, they are gonna become drunk with adrenalin and the false sense of confidence it can give us. They are gonna think “if I whip out my gun, that’ll teach ‘em to get in my face!” Even if those people remain in the minority, that’s still a shit-load of potential fatalities each year, all from scenarios where a gun was utterly unwarranted.
@firetyger - I don’t think open carry has saved anyone’s life in these tragedies. It’s almost a pipe dream to think it ever will because it would require EVERYONE to carry a gun. These guys will strike when you least expect it, and by whipping out a gun, you make yourself a primary target. Which, I suppose is taking a bullet for someone else, so thanks?
@grim_truth - You guys say “violent crimes” go up. But does that include murders? It’s vagu term. But “gun-related deaths” is quite specific.
You have to make weapons harder to get for everyone, not easier. I’ve talked about things being used for primary purpose. Yes, some guy could theoretically cook up bombs in their garage, but it’s unreasonable to ban all the substances they use. But it’s very reasonable to ban things like assault rifles that are specifically designed to kill a lot of people very quickly and efficiently. We need to make them harder for good guys and bad guys to get, which turns up the pressure on gun salesmen because guns used in crimes will be easier to trace.
@coolmonkey - murder rates in general go up, not just violent crime. But hey, gun related deaths went down. My family was stabbed to death, but it’s all good because gun control worked. Please, when making comments about statistics, at least look up the statistics.
Also, there have been plenty of cases where mass shootings have been avoided because of someone else with a gun. Remember just the other week, the 71 year old man who stopped the armed robbers? 30 patrons in there, and he didn’t hit any of them. The old “they’d probably shoot innocent people” argument is weak and old and holds absolutely no water. There are plenty of incidents where crime was prevented because the would-be victim was armed.
Ever notice how no one ever targets an NRA event or a gun show for their mass shooting? They target places they know the victims will be unarmed.
Mass killings are also nothing new.
Bath, Michigan. School bombing. May 1927, 44 dead.
San Diego, California. McDonald’s shooting. Jul 1984, 21.
Camden, New Jersey. Shooting spree. Sep 1949, 13.
Fairfield, California. Shooting spree. Aug 1928, 11.
And of course, let’s not forget 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the first Trade Center bombing, all three accomplished without the use of guns.
Criminals don’t care about gun laws. Kind of what makes them criminals. Especially when their intent is to kill many people. Why should weapons be harder to get for law-abiding citizens? Shouldn’t they be easier to get for those folks? By making them harder to obtain in legal methods, they end up making them easier to obtain through illegal methods. Which is why states with tougher gun control laws actually have higher murder-by-gun rates. Vermont, which is pretty open when it comes to gun ownerships, literally had a 0% murder-by-gun rate with only 7 murders in 2009. Stricter states such as DC, Illinois, California, and New Jersey had 70% murder-by-gun rates.
Bottom line, when folks want to kill, they’ll kill. They’ll simply change their method.
@coolmonkey - Theoretically, if someone had a gun in this kind of situation to stop the murderous psycho, the situation wouldn’t turn into a national tragedy. So then it wouldn’t make national headlines either. So saying that no one has ever stopped one of these situations from happening is difficult to gauge. However, we can look at statistics for crimes that were prevented by the citizen holding their gun on the criminal.
Here is an example of a stabbing spree that could have been a lot worse but was cut short by an elderly man with a concealed carry permit carrying a gun: http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=20161608&title=man-buys-knife-stabs-2-at-salt-lake-city-store&s_cid=featured-4
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - Oh dear! That’s a worry.
I’d prefer to stay out of this debate for the most part, at least in terms of whether there should be more or less firearm regulations. But I would like to point out that weapon, ammo, accessories, etc., that were used in commission of this crime were most definitely legal under the Assault Weapons Ban. The Ban merely prohibited the manufacture and sale of _new_ high capacity magazines (as well as a few other _mostly_ cosmetic features on the weapons themselves), not the sale of existing ones such as military surplus. Basically, had the Ban been renewed, it would not have stopped Holmes and it is unlikely that it would have even slowed him down in his acquisition of said items. Case in point, the Columbine massacre occurred in 1999 while the Ban was still in full effect.
as an “outsider” (non American), all I can say is that it sure is interesting to see so many people in the US arguing that what the country needs, is even more guns and assault weapons and even more people carrying them around wherever they go…
We should have more gun control laws. But, how can we control those who can illegally get their hands on assault weapons?
Not that I’m a US citizen, but… In this case it’s likely that someone will either challenge or uphold the relevent right asserted as (I think) an amendment to the US Constitution (or is it the Bill of Rights?) the right of the citizen to bear arms. It might be useful to point out that the “arms” refered to were primitive single-shot firearms, not massively more useful than a sword, and certainly not capable of killing a dozen in as many seconds.
It’s a case of a change in quantity being effectively a change in quality. A basic right of self-defense should not be interpreted as a right to own vast and extended killing power.
Good point and great blog!
Why does America care about having guns so much?
Treating guns as the problem is a cop-out; it’s an easy way of avoiding the cause of such violence. Ban assault guns, and they’ll find ways to get around it.
Switzerland has some of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, and yet their gun crime rates are among the lowest. A big factor is the military training that men older than 20 are conscripted into, as well as government laws requiring Swiss men to have firearms in their homes. (Often they are assault rifles, of the SIG variety - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_SG_550)
So it’s fairly obvious that it’s not the lax gun control laws that are the problem, but rather how we handle violence in our society, as well as the social conditions that drive a person into gun violence. Did anyone stop to think about the mental and psychological issues that may drive such a person to gunning down innocent people? Did anyone think about our society’s emphasis on gender roles that force men to suppress their emotions, which is extremely unhealthy and can play a factor in these sorts of things?
No, it’s so much easier to focus on gun control laws instead. That’s how fucking lazy we’ve become.
@Zissu25 - I’m an ‘insider’, but relatively new to a forum like this where so many people can express their views like this. This is the first time, therefore, that I have seen the reaction from all sides that erupts in the wake of a tragedy like this. I think most people are trying to assimilate what happened in the state of Colorado and generally feel under attack by whomever the opponent happens to be. For those who want guns for all, that’s the left. For those who want them banned or curtailed in some way, that’s the right. Basically what I’m saying is that we’re all united in opposition to the gunman himself, but not so united on how to process what he did.
Hope this helps.
@QuantumStorm - It seems to me that dismissing the idea that lax gun control laws are at least PARTIALLY responsible, is as foolish as saying that they are the ONLY reason for the problem. You make some great points, but you get into trouble when you start discussing things in extremes.
@amateurprose - Ehhh, it’s debatable but in the end I wouldn’t say they really are part of the problem. It would be like arguing that car ownership laws are partly responsible for the drunk driving rates/accidents in our country. Being able to obtain guns does not automatically make a person into a crazed killer; the problem is more about how social stagnation as well as psychological/mental issues drive a person into doing those things.
@QuantumStorm - Switzerland’s gun control laws aren’t lax in the sense that the standing militia members who own the weapons undergo extensive weapons training for several years to a decade in order to carry them. If that were proposed in America, conservative gun advocates would literally rebel.
Also, their carrying permit examination in Switzerland is very hard. It’s substantially harder than, say, the average state driver’s license exam.
These are all ideas liberal/moderate politicians have floated in the past, but they were shouted down as un-American by the right.
@UTRow1 - I actually wouldn’t mind that sort of weapons training. Nor would I mind having difficult exams for permits.
I’m a subscriber and read about 50% of your posts, usually having very
positive reactions to them. In particular, your lengthy series on the
evidence for evolution was interesting, although I’m not sure I read
more than a couple of the posts on it. As it happens, I’m also a
godless liberal, and also not uncomfortable with that.
Anyway, the reason I wanted to post is that I was a little disheartened
to see you succumb to what to me is the same kind of easy (and poor)
rhetoric that plagues most casual political discussion and mainstream
news in parts of this post. This part in particular bothers me:
“In the last two decades, mass shootings seem to have become an epidemic,
and it’s only gotten worse, especially in the last few years. We look at
these shootings: Columbine, Virginia Tech, Congresswoman Giffords, and
now Aurora, Colorado – and we see tragedy. And we should. These are
tragedies. But we cry about it for a few days, then apparently forget,
the news of dozens dead overshadowed by a celebrity overdose or an
sports team underdog making a spectacular win. It’s a tragedy, but what
are we supposed to do about it? So we move on.”
See this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/dark-knight-shooting_n_1689505.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
Poorly headlined, I think the stats used in this article actually
suggest that the total number of victims of mass murders yearly has been
basically constant. The increase is statistically small (though
obviously not insignificant for loved ones of the additional victims)
and the analysis of the numbers is weak (comparing the 80s generally
against 2006-2008 seems strange to me, when numbers have been available
for all the years). 2 additional deaths against a base of 161 doesn’t
represent evidence of an epidemic.
Furthermore, I think it’s kind of disingenuous to include Columbine in your list there– it happened 13 years ago, and was classified as part of a different
epidemic of violence (which I seem to remember not really being
that much of an epidemic, as I believe overall violence had declined in
schools in the 90s from highs set in the 80s (however, I don’t have
sources for that and could be wrong, I’m just going on memory)). Also, when
you actually spread out that list, although is doesn’t stop being
horrifying, those shootings didn’t really happen contemporaneously. The
Giffords attack was more than a year ago. The VA Tech shootings were
in 2007. Columbine was 1999.
I don’t bring this up in any way to advance an anti-gun-control
position. I don’t bring it up to downplay how heinous these crimes have
been, nor am I any less concerned by the enormously high rate of gun
violence in the US. My only reason for bringing this up is that I
generally very much respect what you write here, but I think you let
yourself get away with a rhetorical strategy that people on the right
use very often, which is to appeal to our faith in the presence of some
previous golden, innocent age and to suggest that something is wrong
today that wasn’t wrong then. You didn’t overtly pull the “Don’t you
remember a simpler time…” card, but suggesting a sudden epidemic
implies things previously were better, when I’m not sure there’s much
evidence to support that.
Sorry, I have no idea why the formatting got screwy there.
@QuantumStorm - that’s because you aren’t crazy.
@UTRow1 - Only when people are looking.
with the way things are going, grenades and rocket launchers will be available at toy’s r us in 10 years..
@UTRow1 - I should also add – part of the reason why Switzerland has such low rates in apparent contrast to lax laws has to do with the society’s perception of guns. They view guns as an integral part of their duties in defending the homeland. Another part of it has to do with the low levels of socioeconomic stagnation present in Switzerland. Hence why a simplistic, “BAN ALL ASSAULT GUNS HERP DERP” attitude is stupid at best because it won’t actually solve the problem. A person who is motivated enough to commit violence with weapons will find a way to overcome laws, and banning assault weapons will only give more power to the black market and illicit arms dealers, where tracking gun shipments and purchases is infinitely harder than it is tracking them through legal vendors.
There are many other factors that actually deal with the CAUSES of the mental/psychological mindsets that armed killers have. Rather than focus on those things, the ANTI-gun nuts would rather redirect energy into something else that doesn’t solve the problem but is easier to manipulate so they can act like they’re “solving the problem.” It’s a power trip that helps no one but politicians in the election cycle.
@QuantumStorm - haha, the liberal mindset = “Legalize drugs, people will do them anyway so the laws aren’t helping at least legalize and tax them and stop stigmatizing drug users…. Make guns illegal, it’s the only way to end violence!” sorry, but the bit in your comment about motivated people overcoming the laws made me think about this.
“Could Colorado theater massacre hurt ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ at the box office?”
That is a disgusting question.
“Because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold.” Matthew 24:12
@QuantumStorm - All the more reason to make guns only work with approved nano-particles in the bloodstream (Guns of the Patriot).
The right to bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.
@moss_icon - But none of that eliminates the fact that he would not have gotten as far in his shooting rampage as he would have if everyone was armed. Anyways I agree with you on one thing, it’s too early to know what this guy’s mental state was. No reason or motive has turned up. He was a succesful student getting ready for a high paying career. He had everything going for him.
Well stop and think about it. Look at all the trouble the Afghan tribes and rebels in Iraq have caused for the US troops. It’s true that they are not as well equipped, not by a long shot, but an armed populace that knows the terrain well can still be a huge problem. Not only a problem to track and kill, but also a logistical problem as they can disrupt supply lines and production. That is the sort of thing that could happen here if the government tried to force a police state on an armed populace. I am thoroughly convinced that they are working toward establishing a police state, and that gun control is one step in that direction. Anyways the US doesn’t have the largest military machine, that honor goes to China, by far.
Have you ever been to a dog park? A dog park is a place where dogs are put into an enclosed area together, and allowed to run around without their leashes on. They tell you to take your dog off the leash before you go in, because if he is still on the leash he might get into a fight. Why? Because when dogs are on leashes around other dogs they are more likely to engage in bluster, but when they are off the leash they are more cautious because they do not have the safety net that you as an owner provide for them when they are on the leash. The same is true of humans. On the surface your argument does look good, the only thing is that all the criminals manage to get guns anyways, and because so few people carry guns with them most people are easy prey. An armed populace means less of this will occur, no matter how you slice it.
@grim_truth - Your family was killed? Was it your wife and son, or did something happen to your parents? When did this happen?
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - No, sorry. that was more of a tongue in cheek comment.
Nobody ever said Bloomberg was especially bright, even if he is a canny politician….. There is NO WAY there will ever be a legislated reduction in weapons on the street….. If more parents were to educate, not lecture, their children about firearms and not allow the media to glorify the insane shooters out here, we collectively would be much better off……..but the hand wringers and crybabies seem to be in the main for now, as always, so don’t hold your breath, YOU”LL SUFFOCATE!!!!! Peace
Obviously only a fan of the Bill of Rights when they’re protecting the rights that are important to you. Convenient.
PS: you don’t NEED cheeseburgers for dinner, so that must mean it’s perfectly reasonable to outlaw them.
This is all 100% sophistry.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - [The leadership on the left wants more gun
control so that they can bring about their totalitarian police state
with less resistance.]
The left is the side constantly fighting for the civil rights of minority groups. I watched the warmongering after 9/11. If anyone is aiming for a totalitarian police state, it’s the right. Patriot Act, Arizona “Paper’s Please” law, invading Iraq with no valid reason, apprehending people with no due rights, detaining them in camps like Gitmo with no lawyers… these are all acts of a terrorist state, and these are all laws passed by the American right.
@blonde_apocalypse - At what point do you draw the line at your right to bear arms? There’s a wide range from slingshots to nukes. I happen to draw the line at guns made for no reason other than to kill as many as quickly as possible. I bear no ill will towards people who have regular handguns or hunting rifles.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - [Anyways the US doesn't have the largest military machine, that honor goes to China, by far.]
Well that’s a blatant lie. We rank #1 on military spending, and spend as much as the next 26 countries combined. China is a far distant #2.
@GodlessLiberal – the purpose of the second amendment is the same as all the other 9 BOR: to protect the citizens of the US from their OWN government. The 2nd is specifically in place to assure that the government could not disarm the populace so that if the government became tyrannical it could be overthrown, as the writers of the constitution had done only a few years before. I draw the line at gun ownership based on their use. Murder is illegal. Specifying with a law how murder must be performed is inane and pointless. People intent on murder aren’t concerned whether the weapon they use is “legal.”
@GodlessLiberal – Timothy mcveigh killed hundreds of people all in one fell swoop using diesel fuel and fertilizer. You gonna outlaw those as well? Ricin, one of the most toxic substances known to man is made from castor beans. Outlaw beans too? Cyanide from almonds. Outlaw almonds too ? I don’t know about you but I don’t want to live on a world where everything is illegal because someone could kill me with it.
@GodlessLiberal - So what? China has the largest army in the world. They also have nukes, and a good deal more stealth technology than we ever imagined was possible. Or maybe you missed the news article about how one of their subs snuck up on one of our ships. Just because they spend less money does not mean their military is smaller. They have a command economy so they don’t pay any of their people as well either for service or research.
@blonde_apocalypse - They don’t seem to get these basic facts.
@GodlessLiberal - First of all, you’re confusing neo-cons with the right. I agree with you on the invasion of Iraq, but the invasion of Afghanistan was necessary. You guys are constantly advocating for more government and increased socialism. As far as I heard no one has been detained without due process or an arrest warrent. But that is soon to come, thanks to the NDAA.
IF you’re talking about Gitmo, those are foriegn nationals, and as such the Constitution does not apply to them. We do not YET have a one world government. Checking the paperwork on Mexicans is completely rational, as that is what the gross majority of our illegal immigration is. Do you want to abolish the border with Mexico and just let them all in? Kicking out illegal aliens is perfectly acceptable to me. They aren’t citizens so our Constitution does not apply to them, and in any event they are here illegally.
Why don’t you ask your man Obama why he passed the NDAA? Also ask him why he opened the FEMA camps. What is this man doing? He wants to turn the country into a communist hellhole like Soviet Russia.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – Yeah, I dunno what to tell ya. Most of them are fairly intelligent, too. I guess not knowing what happens behind those doors at the front of the line is just too scary to think about. Moooooo.
i’m amazed how the usa allows and legalizes the ownership of may kinds of fire arms but ban many kinds of imported cheese. THIS, i just don’t understand.
@blonde_apocalypse - The idea that the Second Amendment provides for an individual right to keep and bear arms outside militia service is a legal fiction created by Scalia in Heller. The vast majority of legal historians, past and present, reject his historical analysis in Heller because Scalia created this interpretation based pretty much exclusively on the Dissent of the Pennsylvania Minority. This is preposterous because the Dissent of the Pennsylvania Minority only represented the Anti-Federalist minority of a single state and was never emulated by any other ratification convention or echoed by any major writer during ratification.
For example, the historian Saul Cornell characterized Scalia’s historical analysis in Heller as “amateurish,” arguing that Scalia made “no serious effort to establish[] the relative influence of particular texts. . . . The version of reality conjured up by originalists is a caricature of the history it purports to represent.” Cornell concludes: “The notion that there was a general consensus on the meaning of the Second Amendment that supports an individual right with no connection to the military is simply gun rights propaganda passing as scholarship.”
And if we look at the historians of the antebellum era, they also reached conclusions similar to Cornell. Benjamin Oliver, arguably the most influential historian of the antebellum period, explicitly concluded that the drafters of the Bill of Rights intended the right to bear arms to be conditioned on militia service.
If you’re interest in reading more, I would suggest Saul Cornell, Originalism on Trial: The Use and Abuse of History in District of Columbia v. Heller 69 Ohio St. L.J. 625 (2008).
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - Areas liberals (generally) want “less” government where right-wingers do not: (1) military spending; (2) privacy rights; (3) domestic relations (e.g., no government prohibitions on same-sex marriages); (4) recreational drug use; (5) right to bodily integrity (including freedom from state/local anti-abortion laws); (6) pretty much all Fourth Amendment rights; (7) network neutrality issues (we just want the government to prevent monopolies and price gouging); (8) free speech (virtually every anti-violent video game, anti-profanity, anti-obscenity movement has been fronted predominantly by conservatives); etc. These aren’t even up for debate.
There’s no basis for the claim that liberals want “more government” than the Right. It’s only fair to say that the liberals want “more government” on particular issues. The right want more unjustifiable government intervention, in my opinion, but that’s just based on my personal preferences and values.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - It turns out the guy was wearing quite a bit of protective gear. It seems he maybe anticipated an armed response, so he was clearly not deterred by the idea some people might fire at him. And the fact still remains that here in Japan, where gun control laws are some of the worlds’ strictest, such a crime would never happen at all. Lethal shootings in Japan are almost unheard of. In the US in 2009 there were 9,146 gun-homicides. In Japan in 2008 there were 11. In my home country of the UK, where we have gun control laws, but not as tight as Japan, there were 138. Perhaps if we compare a country of greater size than the US, like Canada? 173 gun-homicides in 2009. As reasonable as your Deterrence Theory argument is, in theory, it is pure speculation. So too is my blood-bath scenario, with folks firing wildly in a state of hysteria, to be fair. But the fact remains that those countries with significant to severe gun control laws are not filled with cowering citizens fearing for their lives before the firepower of illegally-acquired weaponry. The fact remains that the USA – a country with some of the world’s more lax gun-laws – also experiences the some of the highest gun-related homicides and accidental deaths. And not by a relatively-comparable, or slight and incidental margin. By a whole friggin’ ocean!
All the criminals do not get guns. Some do, but certainly not all of them. Sure, they will try. But there is no truth in thinking that they will all be successful. The only way all criminals could be successful in acquiring a firearm is if they can buy one at the nearest Walmart. If it were that easy, the UK’s gun crime stats would be way, way higher. I guarantee that the criminal world in the UK, at least, would be loaded for bear if they could, and terrorising the unarmed populace. But this is not happening. Yes, we have problems. Significant ones. But we still total less than 1% of the US’ murders-via-shooting per year. People like to cite “rising” and “falling” stats out of context to give the impression of a problem/lack thereof to support their arguments but they fail to mention the actual stats. The stats show that regardless of whether the rate of crime has risen or fallen, those countries with stringent gun-control still have a mere fraction of the gun-crime of the US.
I’m not saying gun ownership causes the problem. I agree that is an idiotic argument. As some (QuantumStorm?) said, focusing only on gun-ownership does not get us to the cause of such crimes; it is treating the symptom and not the disease. Such issues are sociological and psychological and have nothing to do with the ease of gun-ownership. But… when people with problems, violent criminals, gangs, etc. have complete and free access to own guns, they will own guns. Where is the wisdom in making it easy for these people to acquire them? Unregulated gun-ownership means vastly higher amounts of gun-crime. Is it the cause of said crime? No. But does reducing gun-control suggest lower crime statistics? No, not at all. Your dog won’t chew up your shirt because you own shirts. He’ll chew ‘em up cos he’s a dog. But if you place the damn shirt within biting distance, what do you think will happen?
The problem, as far as I can tell, is a culture of violence, aggression, hostility and suspicion in the US. People are already at each others throats. In Switzerland, where many people also own guns (as mentioned) there is no such culture. But what has bred this culture? I found this fascinating article on that very topic the other day: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/2012/07/26/the-jokers-wild/ It basically argues that inequality is the main contributing factor, which frankly comes as little surprise.
@blonde_apocalypse - All those things serve other purposes. The issue with guns is that their singular purpose is to kill or maim. Almonds are food. Fertilizer is used on crops. They all have a none-violent, none-homicidal reason to exist. Guns exist to kill or maim.
@moss_icon - All entirely beside the point, the point being that there is nothing you can do in legislation that will prevent anyone from murder, especially murder on a large scale, once he”s decided to thats his best option. It’s utterly absurd to entertain the idea that a person can believe mass murder is a reasonable choice but will be dettered because a particular type of weapon is illegal. Accepting such an idea without immediately rejecting it as ridiculous is a form of mental illness.
@blonde_apocalypse - It’s not besides the point at all. Yes, almost anything can be used to kill if there is a will to kill. The point is anything which serves a purpose other than to kill would not be made illegal simply because it can kill. Guns aren’t simply a can-kill item. That is their sole purpose.We would not lose a method of transport as we would in banning cars. We would not lose a food like we would with almonds. We would not lose a necessary chemical in crop-growth as we would with fertilizer. We would simply lose a weapon designed purely to kill.
No, you cannot legislate away murder. But you can legislate a way to make the easiest, most effective murder weapons – things which have no other purpose than to kill or maim – difficult to purchase. At the very least, prevent them from being bought over-the-counter, no checks, no accountability, no nothing. I said nothing about the lack of a gun deterring a mass-murderer from killing. But if he failed to procure one he could do much less damage.
@moss_icon - thank you for your recommendation
I have been reading all the comments and thought I might throw this out there for an idea. For my home protection I bought a pump Mossberg shotgun, pistol grip, 6 shot riot gun. Why did I want a shotgun? In the first place as a commedian said, probably if you were the intruder the most sickening sound would be a shotgun being cocked in the dark. Shotgun’s can be so messy. But with a shotgun even if you are excited you would probably be able to hit the target as there is probably not less than 20ft. between you and the intruder. But lets say the dog jumped on you and you missed. With a light weight shotgun and the preferred type shells they would not go far enough to hit the house across the street or next door to do any damage. I also have a Bersa .30 cal pistol….Great for punching holes in paper at the gunrange. And like one of your commenters, gun safety certificates should be a must to buy a gun legally. If you sell a gun to someone that does not have that certificate, you should also receive a fine. (Like selling alcohol to minors).
Your articles are purely enough for me.
shootingtargets7.com