The Colorado Batman Murders and Gun Control
I wish I had something intelligent to say about the mass murder at the showing of The Dark Knight Rises in Colorado.
On the one hand, I am firmly committed--and you should be, too--to the principle that the populace should have the capacity to resist the government with force. On the other hand, that means that the public should have access to very powerful, high-capacity firearms. Honestly, I'm not wild about either of the obvious options; I find myself unable to agree either with the NRA or with the Brady Campaign.
My current inclination--and a fairly long-standing one--is to think that we should do more to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and people with mental problems. Obviously criminals and the insane (two largely co-extensive groups) already have access to illegal weapons. And that's a problem that cannot be easily solved. It sounds as if the Batman shooter, however, bought all of his weapons legally and recently.
Perhaps the only real options are (1) thorough-going gun control--which is never going to happen in the U.S. (and which I myself would oppose)--and (2) increasing the number of sane people who are armed. Two non-great options.
I often feel guilty that I've never applied for my CCW. My brother has one, and goes most places armed. He never thinks he'll need it, but he feels obligated to be prepared, just in case. Armor or no, had he of someone like him been in the theater, fewer people would have been harmed. The thing is, few people are dedicated enough to tote around a handgun. They're very inconvenient to carry, especially in hot weather. They're heavy. They're oily. People freak out if they see them. It's just not a very good solution.
This is a tough problem. I simply don't see any good solution.
And that's all I have to say.
On the one hand, I am firmly committed--and you should be, too--to the principle that the populace should have the capacity to resist the government with force. On the other hand, that means that the public should have access to very powerful, high-capacity firearms. Honestly, I'm not wild about either of the obvious options; I find myself unable to agree either with the NRA or with the Brady Campaign.
My current inclination--and a fairly long-standing one--is to think that we should do more to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and people with mental problems. Obviously criminals and the insane (two largely co-extensive groups) already have access to illegal weapons. And that's a problem that cannot be easily solved. It sounds as if the Batman shooter, however, bought all of his weapons legally and recently.
Perhaps the only real options are (1) thorough-going gun control--which is never going to happen in the U.S. (and which I myself would oppose)--and (2) increasing the number of sane people who are armed. Two non-great options.
I often feel guilty that I've never applied for my CCW. My brother has one, and goes most places armed. He never thinks he'll need it, but he feels obligated to be prepared, just in case. Armor or no, had he of someone like him been in the theater, fewer people would have been harmed. The thing is, few people are dedicated enough to tote around a handgun. They're very inconvenient to carry, especially in hot weather. They're heavy. They're oily. People freak out if they see them. It's just not a very good solution.
This is a tough problem. I simply don't see any good solution.
And that's all I have to say.
posted by Winston Smith at
5:03 PM
7 Comments:
Until private citizens can buy Bradley Fighting Vehicles, cruise missiles, Apache attack helicopters, depleated uranium shells, white phosphorous, predator drones and F-22 Raptors, the dream of meaningful, forceful resistance of government is a ego-stoking fantasy. Yes, yes, guerrilla warfare, "Wolverines!" etc. I don't think stringent gun control laws are feasible in the US, but that argument has always felt silly to me.
And there's absolutely no guarantee that more guns going off in a darkened, smoke-filled room full of panicking people would have lead to less harm being done.
Absolutely false, Matthew.
Take just the deer hunters in Michigan, West Virginia, and a few other states, and you've got more people than in the U.S. armed forces. Do you need F-22s and Bradleys to fight successfully against the U.S. armed forces? No, as the Iraqi and Afghan insurgents--among many others--have demonstrated. You're just reciting lefty-wing talking-points.
Of course the cherry on top is the accusation that to point out the plain facts above is "ego-stroking fantasy." Very nice. One might respond that your points are merely defeatist, quasi-pacifist worship of the power of the state...but I don't see why that would have any place in a rational discussion.
And needless to say, the objection that "there is no guarantee" that armed citizens could stop a mass murder is sophistry. There is no guarantee of anything interesting about policy. There is no guarantee that seat belts and air bags will save your life. There is no guarantee that eating right and exercising will lead to a healthy life. More to the point: there is no guarantee that gun control will stop mass murders, and there is no guarantee that more armed citizens will *not* stop them. We are not looking for guarantees; we are looking for improved probabilities.
Call me naive, but maybe the resolution is no longer related to weaponry and criminal legislation.
When a particularly rare or relatively extreme weapon is required to effect great violence, one may be best off attempting simply to restrict access to that weapon. When, on the other hand, the threat is easily fought, the best bet might be to prepare to fight. But, in an age where common weaponry can quickly effect great violence, we may need to turn our attention elsewhere.
Not too long ago, I read a book entitled "The Teacher" by a man named Jacob Abbott in which he emphasized the moral authority which must be held by a teacher. The text underlined a realization I had experienced some years prior that, until college, I had not known a teacher whom I would have considered a moral authority. In fact, I simply didn't consider many of my teachers to be very smart at all, and, as validated by my parents, I wasn't typically incorrect in doing so.
I had the misfortune of acheiving adulthood without really understanding why I ought to be a good person. I was lucky enough to have good enough parents and friends that I had perhaps a natural aversion to immorality, but intellectually, I had little, if any, understanding of the rational foundation of morality. For people finding themselves in a similar ethical situation while experiencing precarious mental states or otherwise greatly stressful environments, I have the utmost sympathy. I frequently reflect on the great fortune I've had in my life, for I see in my own past a moral vulnerability to which so many seem to fall victim.
I'm now fairly convinced that the only way to resolve the issues of violence which face us today is to focus intensely on philosophical and religious education. We teach our children sciences and mathematics but expect them to comprehend ethics on their own. It boggles my mind and, in my estimation, leads to generations of child-like adults who believe moral obligations are the stuff of fairy tales.
We can never win the fight against ill will; where it develops, violence will follow. We may be at a point in our society's evolution where we must focus with unprecedented intensity on the cultivation of good will so that education may be our salvation.
Because nothing could possibly go wrong in a datlrk movie theatre filled with smike and screams if a significant number of the audience were also packing heat.
Your argument is based on the counterfactual that schizophrenic people are getting guns illegally.
Unless and until that becomes the case, the obvious solution remains improving background checks.
-mac
My view is predicated on on such assumption. In fact, that's one reason this is such a tough case--looks like this guy got all his guns perfectly legally.
Better, more extensive background checks are one obvious step. But I fear that wouldn't have caught this guy.
And OF COURSE things will go wrong in chaotic situations when (innocent) people are armed and can fight back. But, again, *less* will go wrong that way than if they are just lambs to the slaughter.
Whence the idea--that shows up in the gun debate and virtually nowhere else--that people are worse off when capable of defending themselves?
Honestly, after seeing and feeling the anger that normal, healthy people often feel, especially in crowded areas like NYC (think road rage) I am more afraid of a normal person with a gun using it in an inappropriate time than I am of a criminal. The criminal will probaly have a gun anyway. There is a reason it is hard to get a gun in NYC - people will shoot each other over parking spaces and stupid shit on subway cars.
mac--
First line of my response should read 'on *no* such assumption'...
A--
Yep. I worry that overpopulation and unchecked urbanization may be radically changing the world in all sorts of ways. Over-dense cities like NYC are weird in lots of ways (good in lots of ways...bad in lots of ways...) There *does* seem to be an awful lot of hostility running through such places. Wish I knew what conclusions to draw...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home