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.
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.
@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.
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.