A Colorado Massacre Postscript: Why Does It Happen Here?
Of course it had to happen on July 20, the anniversary of the single most stupendous achievement in the history of our species. And in a way, it paints a sorry symbolic portrait of a great nation in decline. From 1969 to 2012 — a mere 43 years — we’ve gone from walking on the moon to witnessing a massacre of innocents by a lone gunman at a Batman movie in a suburban multiplex.
I probably shouldn’t read too much significance into the date the killer chose to carry out his deadly deed. It’s obvious that he picked July 20 because that’s when “The Dark Knight Rises” premiered at a midnight show in Aurora, Colorado. But, given my general pessimism about the state of this Union, I couldn’t help noting the date and thinking back to that other July 20 that so many of us baby boomers remember so vividly.
My brother and I can still recite Neil Armstrong’s final words as the lunar module closed in on its target: “Forward, forward… drifting to the right a little… contact light.” That was the moment: the touchdown, the goal achieved. And good old Walter Cronkite, as boyishly exultant as the rest of us, shouted a simple sentence that drove it all home: “MAN ON THE MOON!” The Eagle had landed.
So why does it happen here, almost routinely, with such sad and predictable results, in the same nation that sent men to the moon? Is it our national gun fetish — or something deeper and even darker?
And why are the perpetrators so eerily indistinguishable from one another? It’s always the same, isn’t it? Young single male. White (usually). Quiet (always). Kept to himself mostly. Unwilling or unable to form intimate relationships. Frustrated. Very frustrated. A bit grandiose. And obsessed with guns.
We don’t really know what kind of devils got into the head of James Holmes. A stellar student until very recently, he fit the classic mass-murderer profile like a size-10 foot sliding into a size-10 shoe. But most lonely young men who fit the same profile don’t launch homicidal attacks on random crowds.
Young Holmes had been an academic superstar… his prowess in school undoubtedly formed the core of his self-esteem. One of his former classmates recalled that the kid never had to take notes; he just sat there in silence, absorbed everything by osmosis and aced his exams. But maybe the doctoral program in neuroscience forced him to bump up against his intellectual limitations for the first time in his life. (I bumped up against mine a little earlier, in high school physics and calculus… and I have to tell you it took years to recover from the shock.)
Holmes’s grades began to crumble; he was about to be put on academic probation when he withdrew from the doctoral program at the University of Colorado. The world suddenly must have seemed sinister and unreal to him… as sinister and unreal as a Batman movie. What a joke… and so the former wonk metamorphosed into The Joker, that malevolent archvillain and Batman nemesis with the grotesque grin etched permanently onto his face.
Did the young man’s first brush with academic failure drive him to bitterness, despair and bloody revenge fantasies? Did it poison his shy, bookish, grade-dependent nature? Was it enough to drive him insane?
We could speculate that America has become a hard-driving culture in which failure is not an option. And yet Japan is, if anything, even more hard-driving and intolerant of failure. But here’s an eye-opening statistic for you: in the U.S., the annual gun-related death rate per 100,000 people (including both homicides and suicides) is 10.27 — among the highest in the world. In Japan, the figure is 0.07 — among the lowest in the world.
Guns simply are not indispensable props in Japanese culture. By contrast, Americans have been romancing them since since the days of the lone frontiersman with his buckskin jacket and trusty Pennsylvania long rifle… a potent symbol of American manhood and independence. The Western gunfighter and Prohibition gangster long ago entered American lore, along with leathery, gunslinging cinematic role models like John Wayne and Clint Eastwood.
An American man’s sense of personal failure — his inability to live up to culturally imposed standards of success and manliness — can turn lethal in the presence of guns. The possession of a long, cold steel weapon bolsters his sense of potency. He begins to imagine himself a stoical hero in the Old West tradition… a hardened maverick half in love with violent death.
Because, you see, in addition to being a success-driven and gun-loving culture, America is also a narcissistic culture. Just as we love to believe that any American can succeed with enough grit and hard work, we love to believe we’re special. (The Japanese don’t.) With a little imagination, we envision ourselves as heroes in the making… even celebrities. Walter Mitty is alive and well, and today he carries a Glock. James Holmes carried two of them, along with an assault rifle and an old-fashioned Remington shotgun.
Right-leaning men (and plenty of women) in America today seem to be wedded to their guns — or at least the concept of guns — as a form of resistance to encroaching government and its entangling tentacles. If the Second Amendment were to be repealed — if it suddenly became illegal for Americans to own guns — why, the feds could confiscate our property without a peep and we’d all become slaves. Or so their nightmare fantasy goes.
But what if we simply outlawed assault rifles and other semi-automatic weapons that spray sudden death toward crowds of hapless victims? I can’t think of a single peacetime use for such weapons — except to make it easy for psychopaths to commit mass murder. And yet the NRA and its amen corner would go all apoplectic if we took their semi-automatics away.
I wonder how many intruders they expect to be breaking down their doors in the near future. I wonder how many shots per minute would satisfy their lust for the heroic superpowers denied to them in life?
So how do we get our gun crisis under control without triggering an armed rebellion from the NRA crowd? In The Cynic’s Dictionary nearly twenty years ago, I proposed (only half-facetiously) that we should allow everyone to own guns but suspend the production of bullets. We probably don’t have to go that far. But it’s definitely time to push for an unconditional domestic ban on assault weapons, which should be strictly limited to use by the military in foreign wars.
And let’s toughen 0ur standards for granting gun permits. We already put prospective drivers through a rigorous battery of written and hands-on tests before they can earn their licenses. Let’s do the same for firearms.
With over 250 million guns already in private hands here in America, it won’t be easy to stuff this unwieldy genie back inside the bottle. But since the worst gun offenders are usually young and inexperienced, we can raise the bar to make sure that prospective gun owners are fit to use firearms. If they fail, or if they violate gun laws, we simply deny them a license the way we would deny a license to a clueless driver. End of story. The Second Amendment doesn’t prevent us from subjecting gun owners to more intensive screening.
Fair enough? I think so. After all, in the wrong hands, both guns and cars are deadly weapons. We need to be at least as vigilant with gun owners as we already are with drivers.
Still not convinced? Just ask the parents of the twelve people whose lives ended prematurely in that Colorado movie theater on the 20th of July.
Rick Bayan is founder-editor of The New Moderate.
Share This
Related Posts
-
Is This Democracy?
Posted on Apr 24, 2013
-
NRA Liars and Congressional Cowards
Posted on Apr 18, 2013
-
Jim Carrey is Funny, But That Doesn’t Mean He’s Always Right
Posted on Apr 9, 2013
-
It’s Jim Carrey Versus Fox News
Posted on Apr 3, 2013
There are so many statments that are just plain wrong and I’m going to ignore the weak analysis but just to adress a few of the other points, there are legitamate uses for the same firearms of type used in this shooting. I’m not sure why this is somehow taken as an almost justification by some because it’s not. Driving is a privlage but gun ownership is a constitutional right. You might as well permits to speak in public or tests to vote. The feds cannot permit firearms, if they tried they would violate the constitution and the idea is absurd. First we have had a ban on sales and it did nothing to reduce crime and it’s experation occured without any increase in crime. If you want to remmove guns already in private hands then I would hazzard that what may end up being a majority of gun owners would be kmaqde criminal
Sorry made criminal when they refused to turn guns in for what would be no change in crime of violence. This wouldn’t even be treating the symptoms it would be the equivilant to applying leaches.
Guns are not “why it happens.” It can only be argued that “the availability and/or types of weaponry affect the magnitude when it does happen.”
“Why” is a psychology question. Here is my amateur opinion, based solely on observation and at least an attempt to stay informed.
The root cause is the strong attachment Americans have to our own independence and the “me first” attitude ingrained in our culture. This is a self-feeding ideal: newcomers to this country come here because they are also independent-minded. Hence we become more and more independent and solitary.
There are clear mental health benefits from having strong family ties, a good quantity of friends, and ties to a community (geographic or otherwise). Ask anyone who treats depression for a living, they’ll tell you lack of social connections is a key factor. It’s probably true of all mental illnesses that aren’t directly attributal to physical health issues (brain damage, etc.). That most of these shooters are loners is no coincidence.
But what we have is a culture where being “self-sufficient” is the pinnacle of success; where our political movements are based, not on what’s good for the country, but “what’s in it for me”; where our media focuses exclusively on competition & conflict over collaboration & teamwork; where we gravitate towards consumerism without any sort of human contact (self checkout, online shopping); and where we actually punish public figures who even suggest that we try to operate more as a community (remember when Hilary Clinton got lambasted for “it takes a village”?).
It appears that we are a nation of loners more than any other country. Our culture and politics is designed to ruin social structures, not strengthen them. The dog-eat-dog, us-vs-them, last-man-standing mentality is creating a nation in deep, deep trouble. The lightest of symptoms is our inability to address societal problems (like chronic unemployment). The darker symptom is people who sit in their basement and plan out, in great detail, how to slaughter 50 strangers.
Look, there are nut jobs, always have been, always will be, that will try to harm other humans. Face it, they went from knives and machetes to fire arms and bombs. All we can do is try to minimize the wounding and deaths. I don’t see screenings and tests for potential killers to be practical or even constitutional. But, jeez, we can eliminate megamagazines, and please tell me what the non-killing uses for semi and automatic rifles and handguns are.
PLEASE LIST THEM
a)
b)
C)
And please tell us, aside from the slippery slope trope of the NRA, why banning them violates the constitution. If you recall so called “assault rifles” have been restricted in the past.
You’re right we should all move to Norway to get…….. wait, maybe it isn’t always about us.
“Fair enough? I think so”
Not really. You did not mention the hundreds of films and electronic games that make killing a “game” and not reality. How many young white “lone wolf” males spend hours in front of a screen believing they are indistructible and others are their enemies who have to be killed.
While we look at gun laws, lets also look at films and games…What?, thats protected by the freedom of speech in the constitution…Hummm, we can find a way around that also.
Classic misdirection. Unless you can think up a scenario where someone can bludgeon 50 people in eight minutes with a video game controller …
EEllis, I don’t understand why you think that owning a gun is so protected under the Constitution that requiring training and a permit to do it would be unconstitutional. Do you believe that the federal requirement for a permit to own an automatic weapon is unconstitutional? Do you believe that there are weapons too dangerous to allow widespread availability?
These two questions are rhetorical. Permitting of automatic weapons has been found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court, the definition of constitutional. And yes, there is a large range of guns that are considered too dangerous to allow the general public to own. So these two principles are blessed by the Supreme Court as being constitutional. The question is not constitutionally, it is where we draw the line.
This means that we now must look at your statement that there are legitimate uses for all of the weapons that this boy had. The AR-15 is a small caliber .223 high velocity round designed to penetrate at close range and to tumble once it is in the body. Compared to larger caliber lower velocity military rounds it is a round meant to wound with a single hit rather than kill. Each round is smaller and lighter than the .30 caliber round that it replaced allowing a solider to carry many more rounds than before. The weapon as a whole is a retreat from marksmanship to maximum number of rounds fired. The army estimated that 1000 rounds were fired to register one hit.
I have a problem lining up the design of the weapon with any legitimate use in the civilian world. It is a terrible weapon to use for home protection. It is an expensive weapon to use for target practice and not very accurate in stock condition. It is not powerful enough to bring down a deer with a single shot but much more than needed for ’varmits.’ The hundred round magazine seems to be especially much for any purpose that doesn’t shot back at you.
So please list the legitimate uses for the AR-15.
I know that the OP author meant it as a rhetorical point but we can avoid the constitutional issue by banning weapons based on the ammunition that they use. A good place to start would be the small caliber high velocity rounds developed for military use, like the AR-15. It is hard to imagine what legitimate civilian uses there are for weapons that fire .50 caliber machine gun rounds that can literally travel for miles. That is other than the gold standard of the NRA, that someone can make a profit selling them.
Also you could ban types of ammunition that is designed to increase the killing power, hollow points, Talons, Teflon coated bullets, high velocity rounds, etc.
The pen is mightier than the sword reportedly so why not have stronger rules limiting speech? Look yes I do believe that no right is absolute and that can and should be reasonable restrictions on use and ownership of firearms. What I don’t think is law that restrict use for no measurable benefit are reasonable. Like the hi cap mag ban. We had one it made no difference and the expiration of the law made no difference so doing it again for a single event when it’s unlikely it would make any difference at all is total crap.
First you’re mixing stuff up. An AR 15 is a type of rifle. .223 is a type of ammo. 5.56 is the military equivilant to the .223 which is almost 20% more powerful and is the round you are attempting to describe. The .223 Remington, which the rifle in this shooting used, is the most popular center fire rifle cartridge in the US. Because it isn’t very expensive it has great popularity as a target round and is used in to many guns to mention a fraction. Everything from single shot, bolt action, to semi auto and police rifles.
If police and military use a version of this gun for CQB and Entry then how can you say it is unsuitable for use in defending a home? Also is the fact that not everyone lives in the same situation. What doesn’t work in a apt. works fine on a ranch.
I have a feeling you read this somewhere and I’ll be honest it just isn’t true. You have to match the weight with the barrel twist and the max range is limited by barrel length but at the proper range these guns are very accurate and .223 being very popular you would have to shoot rim fired for it to be any cheaper.
While you shouldn’t use the round on deer I can find no logical reason for the belief that the round is more than needed for “varmits”. Since that term could be rats, prairie dogs, coyote, dogs, badgers, birds, and many other animals the .223 is a very good round and is an obvious choice for such a diverse job.
First off the 100 rd mag, a good one anyway, goes for $200 or more. I can get 40 rd mags all day long for under $30. The 100 rd mag is bulky slows you down and is something no one who knows guns would use unless they were in a fixed location. The mag can be used for sport shooting or in prairie dog shooting where a shooter may typically sit at a “bench” which is like a portable seat/table/shooting rest in one. Since these shooters often fire over 500 rounds over a day, the ability to do so without repeated mag changes is self evident and the shooting rest allows one to compensate for the weight of the over sized mag.
So even tho no one has ever been shot with one here in the US and I’m not sure one has ever been used in a crime we should outlaw it “just in case”? I guess all that is not permitted should be verbotten
Great post Rick. Right on the money.
Re: the .223 round. It’s a great varmint cartridge but it’s primary use is in assault weapons. Chambering the round for sporting weapons is fine by me, but high capacity semi-auto carbines require much rationalization to be considered sporting weapons. More common sense and less NRA dogma please.
again just not true. The 5.56 is the military round the .223 the lowered powered civilian round. Mind you since the fed definition is seems to hinge on it there is a handgrip or not the whole assault weapon means nothing or everything. It is now a term without meaning.
First any gun with a detatchable mag can basicly have unlimited ammo capasity. It’s not a function of the rifle but of the mag. Mixing the two up serves no purpose in a logical discussion. Second “because I enjoy shooting it” is a good enough reason. Same thing with high powered cars, motorcycles, and any number of different activities. I’ve repeatedly stated sporting uses for guns of this type and seemingly unless the reader would take part in those activities they must be frivolous and can be ignored I guess. That’s ok tho because if you disagree you don’t have a point or an opinion that matters, no you are just repeating NRA dogma and are unable to utilize basic common sense. I guess you must be mentally defective if you disagree.
EE, come on, I think this your real reason: “Second “because I enjoy shooting it” is a good enough reason.”
However, your technical stuff is good and the distinction between the military round for “true” assault weapons and the old varmint round, is correct. But, the HC magazines, are still not necessary unless they are just “more convenient” or for wounding and killing people. I for one say convenience is not a top priority and even if you are right that a killer will just carry more weapons, I don’t see the down side, except for a little less “enjoyment” by banning the HC magazines. Even if it doesn’t have ANY effect, It can’t do any harm.
I personally would be against a hi cap ban but I wouldn’t get to worked up about it. We don’t live in a society where you have to get permission for what you do. We shouldn’t have to show the need for something for it to be legal. If they can show a reason for banning then so be it, but the burden should be on them to show the reason for a ban and the talk has been that people need to show a reason to be allowed to have use of hi cap mags. That whole philosophy is disturbing to me. That and this may be a horrible tragedy but honestly making laws based on outliers that happen every couple of years that would have little to no effect on anything else, heck little to no effect on the outliers, just seems stupid. Maybe there is something wrong with me that I’m not so overcome with emotion that I don’t tend to automatically agree with anything that might help prevent such tragedies, but I think laws restricting freedoms should have sound reasons. My bad
EE, fair enough. We can agree to disagree on this.