The Aurora Tragedy: A Few Days Later
Like all Americans I was stunned by the unspeakable tragedy that occurred in that Aurora movie theater last week.
Like most Americans I was horrified by the carnage that one man — sane or insane — inflicted on innocent people with legal and easily obtainable assault weapons and hundreds, perhaps thousands of rounds of ammunition.
Like many Americans I was once again sickened by the gun violence in our country.
While I read a lot of the commentary — both “pro-gun” and “anti-gun” — that immediately followed the tragedy and while I have strong opinions on this subject I have withheld those opinions out of respect for the victims and their loved ones.
Today, even though the shock and grief are still with us, I would like to pose some questions, rhetorical maybe, but nevertheless sincere and not at all in a confrontational manner.
I don’t expect answers. There may never be any. But I believe that just intellectually approaching the issue, rather than politically, emotionally or ideologically may help us to better address gun violence when the conditions “are right.”
I understand that one of the principal weapons used by the shooter in the Aurora massacre was an AR-15 assault rifle, a weapon with a high capacity clip that holds 100 rounds of bullets, and where its trigger is capable of firing 50-60 rounds per minute.
Why does an ordinary citizen need to own and brandish such a weapon?
I tend to agree that guns don’t kill people, but that people do. However, wouldn’t guns people kill a lot fewer people if those guns were the kind that are reasonably used by people for home protection, self-defense or for hunting and sports purposes and not those high-capacity, high-velocity, “military” weapons that can “efficiently” kill, maim and injure one hundred innocent people in a matter of minutes, along with ammunition expressly designed to increase the killing and destructive power?
It is possible that if one or more people in the Aurora theater had been in possession of firearms, they could have prevented or reduced the carnage. But it is also reasonable to consider the possibility that it could have added to the mayhem. Are we really prepared to go back to the old Wild West days? Would it not be better if the Aurora killer had, in the first place, not been able to so “effectively” arm himself or if he had been detected earlier?
I agree that the Second Amendment clearly states, “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But shouldn’t a 21st century nation that already has a powerful, professional national military force in addition to well organized and well regulated State National Guards, and in view of the awesome and lethal firepower so readily available to the public, not have the obligation to examine and define once and for all what and who a “well regulated militia” is, what its purpose is, and draw a reasonable line on the arms that can be kept and borne by the “non-militia” members of society?
Additionally, do the American people truly believe that the day will come when our brave soldiers who are dying by the thousands for us will “become the jackbooted thugs that you’ll need to pump a few hundred rounds a minute into?” Or when our government turns “its armed forces from being the neighbors and friends and family members that it is now into the mindless killing drones that [one is] so sure are just around history’s corner?” asks one writer.
I also agree that criminals will always be able to obtain their guns, even if such sales are strictly controlled. But how many Auroras or Columbines or Virginia Techs might have been prevented — or at least not have been so horrific — if those planning and preparing for such massacres, many times without previous criminal records, would have found it quite a bit more difficult to obtain their assault weapons and huge quantities of lethal ammunition?
Finally, I agree that we live in a free society. But would it be at all possible — without infringing on our basic rights, freedom and liberties — to have better and more consistent background checks (criminal, past violence, mental health, etc.) for potential purchasers of deadly assault weapons?
I admit that even with the most stringent checks, some will still slip through the cracks. But if one or two Auroras are prevented, wouldn’t that be worth some inconveniences to legitimate hunters, sportsmen, etc.?
I know that all these questions have been posed, debated, dismissed and rebutted before — too many times and under similar tragic circumstances.
I also know that, sadly, these very same questions and issues will be posed, debated and, yes ridiculed –as the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto does — the next time the innocent are mowed down, and the next time, and…
In pooh-poohing concerns expressed by so many — from the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne Jr. and Mayor Michael Bloomberg to the President of the United States — Taranto pulls out all stops to question and discredit the motives of every “leftist elite” who would dare to raise questions or ask for a reasonable debate about our gun laws. For example:
When people find it necessary to demand a “debate” or complain about the absence of same, it usually means they’re frustrated because there is a debate and their side is losing.
It just so happens that the “side” that is losing and will continue to lose is the untold number of innocent American men, women and children who will continue to die while we call such debate “a slippery slope,” leftist assaults on the Constitution, Un-American, “a camel’s nose to a total or near-total ban on private ownership of firearms and their use for self-defense,” and attach similar disingenuous labels and accusations to the debate and the debaters, respectively. Such as arguing that the New York Times “editorialists claim not merely that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are dangerous but that it is wrong in principle to save innocent lives by stopping a mass murder in progress.”
CODA:
I have managed not to mention either “gun control” or the NRA. That is because, in my opinion, it is not about gun control or about the NRA, but rather about how the Second Amendment must give the people the right to own and use guns without taking away the rights of others to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
My hat off to our J. Gordon Mills (aka “cjjack”) for his wonderful essay on what that organization — the NRA — should say under the circumstances.
LEGAL NOTICE ON CARTOON: The copyrighted cartoon above by Aislin, The Montreal Gazette, is licensed to run on TMV. Reproduction elsewhere without licensing is strictly prohibited. See great cartoons by all the top political cartoonists at http://cagle.com. To license this cartoon for your own site, visit http://politicalcartoons.com
Share This
Related Posts
-
It’s a Holiday in Denmark
Posted on May 31, 2013
-
Military Assists in Oklahoma Tornado Search and Rescue Efforts
Posted on May 21, 2013
-
Is This Democracy?
Posted on Apr 24, 2013
-
You Tell Them, Gabby!
Posted on Apr 18, 2013
DDW..Excellent article. One that if both sides could accept, a dialog might happen to allow for sensible changes to occur that might deter future attacks. There are so many questions concerning this young man, that if answered, might give some insight into how changes might occur.
One thing I do find interesting is the number of people killed could have been much greater had he done further research on the AR-15 gun. As I understand it, that weapon was noted for jambing when the 100 round clip was used. Had he used a 30 round clip(or whatever smaller than the 100), that gun might not have jambed, allowing him to quickly change clips multiple times and continued his attack with many more dead. We could have had more than the number killed in Norway since the individuals in the theater were more tightly placed than on the island in Norway where he had to chase the victims.
I’ve stayed out of this conversation, also, because everything that could be said has already been said many times over, including the fact that these incidents seem to be becoming more frequent.
We have no way of knowing when a person will become psychotic enough to perpetrate a massacre and never will. So living in a complex society where one doesn’t even know one’s neighbor means we will face this over and over again. And nothing but a lucky shot from a highly trained professional could have stopped this assault, anyway.
The fear of other people’s guns which leads a person to purchase their own gun seems to me to be an ever increasing spiral into an abyss of mayhem. If not slowed down soon, we will eventually be living in the bad old frontier days where everyone really did need a gun for protection. Those days might have been romantic but they were also deadly.
Despite any claimes to the contrary, we don’t need guns to protect us from the government. First of all, the government is not going to disarm everyone and second even if they wanted to, that government has unimaginable weapons that any number of automatic rifles would be ineffectual against.
Until the gun lobbys’ income from their propaganda is strangled at the source, we will have to live with their contribution to the violence prevalent in our society. Just as we have to live with the results of a corrupt political system until the income that fuels it is cut off.
I’m not hopeful in either case.
Of course Dorian makes perfect sense in this post, but it will be lost on all the pro-assault weapon junkies in this country.
“Why does an ordinary citizen need to own and brandish such a weapon?”
They absolutely don’t. Anyone who makes a case for the need of citizens to own such weapons is part of the problem.
“The fear of other people’s guns which leads a person to purchase their own gun seems to me to be an ever increasing spiral into an abyss of mayhem. If not slowed down soon, we will eventually be living in the bad old frontier days where everyone really did need a gun for protection. Those days might have been romantic but they were also deadly.
Despite any claimes to the contrary, we don’t need guns to protect us from the government. First of all, the government is not going to disarm everyone and second even if they wanted to, that government has unimaginable weapons that any number of automatic rifles would be ineffectual against.”
Great points– and I totally agree. The need to arm oneself against the one’s own government and fellow citizens seems irrational to the point of extreme paranoia
I totally agree…
One of the things i have been questioning is the assertion. if someone wants to do something like this they are going to do it…?
I am starting to question that one. The ones that we hear about, yes, nothing stopped them, and what is,is and what is not, is not — but we never know the ones that were restricted and successful for they could not get access to a high powered assault weapon.
Another issue is Chief Oates said this guy spent around 20 or 30 thousand dollars to prepare.
I believe that cost and putting as many barriers as possible for access is sane and has the potential to preserve some lives.
We only know the ones that make it through. we do not know how many are blocked by gun regulations.
unsuccessful not successful… oops
Well I would say that I have yet to here of anything that would of made any difference at all in this case so using it to leverage change seems ……… off. Need is a word that gets used alot, what people need. As if suddenly the job of the govt is to decied for use what is needed and then stop us from going any futher. I guess we should have to get permishon and show need for what we have or want. The whole idea gives me a slightly upset feeling. Sure I feel for those caught in this tradgidy but …… The truth is the type of laws that could be reasonable hoped to achieve will do nothing to make any difference on crime or violence in the US. Who do we know? Because we already had them and got rid of them. Didn’t make a bit of difference. Crime rates have gone down, gun ownership and carry have gone up. I don’t think that gun ownership and carry makes a direct effect on the reduction but trying to argue that it’s a negative is ignoring reality. The majority of gun deaths are suicides, 2/3 of gun deaths involve suicide or drugs (more than a little overlap). Addressing root causes will do and has done more to reduce gun violence than any gun control method ever would. The desire to decide for others what is correct seems to be strong on both sides, and funny enough neither can see it.
My thanks to those who are willing to hear (here and elsewhere) at least one or two things that perhaps “would of make any difference” in what really is a national tragedy and shame.
For a different perspective on gun availability and gun ownership, including getting rid of gun-free zones and “more guns, less crime,” read here
Too much for me to respond to, but it is ironic that it used to be the “Saturday night special” that was worried about and garnered plenty of press ink. We have advanced to 32 and 100 round magazines and full body armor. Also, an organization that once was primarily concerned with gun safety, is now a potent political force.
It is a shame that candidates, not just presidential, promise to curb errant gun usage, but cowering in fear of the once safety oriented organization, readily back off and are reduced to nice sounding platitudes.
Finally, i disagree that they will find a way to create the same level of destruction if stricter controls (checks, central registration, etc)on sales precludes easy access and transfer to states like NY and Illinois. At least make harder for people to obtain guns and HC magazines.
P.S. There was a ban on “assault” rifles, why was it lifted?
And for some “balance” (although in the opinion of some, it will totally tip the scales) here’s yet another perspective from — of all people — Michael Moore who says “Both conservatives and liberals in America operate with firmly held beliefs as to ‘the why’ of this problem. And the reason neither can find their way out of the box toward a real solution is because, in fact, they’re both half right. “
You decide.
Read it here
Like he said, he said it all before, as did most of us. So here we are sitting with a status qua thanks to a powerful lobbying group and unprincipled politicians.
You got it right, dduck. (An I hate to admit that those “unprincipled politicians” include Democrats who are dead-scared of the NRA.)
This is why any argument covering historical cases, even Columbine, must be treating carefully.
It has been suggested, and I cannot dispute, that most of the mass-kill violence, like Columbine, in the U.S. was committed by low-cap handguns, standard rifles and shotguns, and not by assault weapons. So therefore, banning assault weapons would not impact this.
However, assault weapons are more and more available. It is inevitable that they will be involved more and more.
Historical arguments are great, don’t get me wrong. They provide real data in contrast to speculation. But history ALSO marches on: not everything that happened 15 years ago, much less 215 years ago, is relevant today.
“not everything that happened 15 years ago, much less 215 years ago, is relevant today.” Amen!
I like many Americans continue to make sense of this senseless heartless tragedy. If only we could find a simple cause and effect that would keep an incident such as this from ripping back the covers of our comfortable dreams of an America and World that is based on something higher than a chronic state of chasing our tails ours and each other. Round and round we go and we cannot seem to get of the wheel of fear and pronounced profit based violence.
At the level of debate we are presently in is not going to be resolve. The gun debate is just another of hemorrhaging symptom of a much deeper problem which is within us and the American psyche.
At every level there are ways to settle the sorrows of being human besides killing and violence.
We need to spend as much time and money on the emotional and soul well being of people, effective communication and conflict resolution training, department of peace as we do on defense.
Our Nation and world is out of balance at so many levels, and greed is the bottom line…
We have sold out…
I am so ready for regulations as tight as Japan…
The Founding Fathers are not living now. They are dead. The Second Amendment is a relic of the past.
We are the ones here, violence, hatred, and the continuous splitting of this issue and others will never be resolved at the level of debate that goes round and round, and where it stops, nobody knows…
Only a new consciousness that honors life beyond profit will begin to address any of these ongoing issues…
Thanks for your comments, OS
Thanks sparrow, yours is the most cogent and human comment I’ve read so far. It’s certainly a refreshing departure from the wornout droning of NRA talking points.
Bravo ordinarysparrow… What Dorian and zephyr said, too.
OS, I have to the dissenter. Your points are kind and thoughtful, and they speak of philosophical truths, however this probably wouldn’t work: “We need to spend as much time and money on the emotional and soul well being of people, effective communication and conflict resolution training, department of peace as we do on defense.”
We need a more direct and much cheaper plan, and since yours wont work,because if nothing else there is no money for it and/or it would be highly incursive on all our lives, the second best is better gun control, starting with some of the measures mentioned in the comments on all the threads on this tragedy.
OS, I echo dduck’s comments.
We do have real causes for the societal rot that affects this country, leading to tragedies such as this. The problem is those causes are deeply ingrained in our culture and not easily shaken, and some fluffy, cuddly programs as you’ve suggested won’t touch that.
We’ve got to limit the types of weapons available to the general public (tear gas? seriously?). It’s the only tenable answer.
@ Barky the creation of programs that help educate and nurture the human spirit towards mature conflict resolution, effective communication, and establishment of peace department are fluffy or cuddly…
Operating from a higher level of consciousness that values the life and worth of all people is the hardest and most mature work that any of us could ever be called to do…
Violence begets violence….this issue will swing back and forth… year after year…periodically pro and con will seemingly trade places with insignificant changes, all the while very little will change…
Only when we have matured beyond where we are now, will we be ready for the hard work of moving towards a society that honors the life as more than something to be dominated or slaughtered…
I am way to the left on this, and am for very strict controls of lethal weapons of any kind, but at present money talks the loudest.
In the 1950′s when farming practices needed to be changed, they did not work with the adults. Programs where set up to educate the children. It seems to me that most people that clamor back and forth on this issue are like the old farmers… they got they are standing firm and are not going to be shaken….
Opening to the consciousness of these issues is difficult because the change of consciousness is slow, where as revolutions are often fast…Revolutions come and go for they are created by the changing tides of dominate beliefs systems, whereas when we evolve consciously it is enduring.
We are in great need for people from all walks of life to stand up and speak a greater consciousness that values the well being of each individual more than greed. Nothing fluffy or cuddly about Love and Honor. No shame will be taken in for that…
We look at the politicians and the things that are being carried out as a representation of us, the American people, and it is so darn obvious we have lost a vision that calls forth the best in us as a country and as individuals in relationships with each other…
Turn on the radio and listen to one hour of NPR or Fox news and hear how our would be Presidents speak of each other… we are near the place of needing to change the High Office of President to the Office of Highest Propagandist….
Fluffy or cuddly, we need to claim back the American soul, as well as raise up how we are in relation with all others…