For starters – my thoughts and prayers go out to the families and friends of the victims of last night’s outbreak of senseless, cowardly violence.
Not that I have a lot to offer in re this story, but here are some observations:
- As many people died in that theatre as died in the previous week and half in “gun-free” Chicago. And the week and half before that. And the week and half before that. So far this year, they’ve been almost 300 firearms homicides in Chicago, and many many hundreds maimed. And there is no end in sight.
- I say that for the benefit of the liberal orcs who are already coming out of the woodwork demanding big changes to American gun laws.
- Notwithstanding the occasional headline-grabbing spree killing, violent crime has been dropping steadily in the US, even as (or, I believe, because) the number of Americans owning guns has skyrocketed in the past decade. 43 states have either shall-issue permitting laws – which have been shown, all other things being equal, to reduce violent crime – and about half the states have some variety of “Stand your Ground” laws, all of them successful outside the media’s rarified sampling of high-profile politicized cases (like the Zimmerman case). No state has even considered repeating a shall-issue law in the nearly thirty years that the laws have been on the ascendant.
- One of the arguments is “what if someone with a carry permit brought their piece to the theatre?” On the one hand, liberals – expressing the deep intellectual rigor for which the liberal anti-gun argument is so famous – respond “Oh, yeah, just what they needed – a bunch of wannabe Dirty Harries”. To which the conservatives respond “Yeah, good thing nobody in the theatre fought back. It might have gotten dangerous!“
So pray first for the victims, their families and friends, the doctors who are treating them, and the people of Aurora.
And then, when all that’s done, pray for the liberal hamsters who come out calling for more moronic gun control laws.
Pray they get God’s mercy, because rhetorically speaking, I will show them none.
UPDATES: I am at the moment thankful that both b the President and even the folks at iMedia Matters seem to be taking the high road so far.
I’m actually keeping my distance from the mainstream media outlets because I can already feel the anti-gun stirrings.
Not to diminish the pain and suffering of those killed or injured and their families, for whom I extend my heartfelt sympathy and prayers. What is also sickening and dispicable is left not wasting one precious second to politicize this horrible tragedy. They jumped on this, the Tucson shootings, the 35W bridge collapse…the list is endless.
But much to your point Mitch…the Second Amendment notwithstanding; Let us entertain the notion that we immediately enact strict gun control laws (which, I might add, are only aimed at restricting legitimate and law-abiding citizens), would we suddenly be safer?
There are currently strict drug possession and trafficking laws in place, and these in most cases are outright bans not simple restrictions. How easy is it today to go out and score a quarter of grass, a rock of crack, some meth, heroin?
As has been pointed out here as well as many other places that history would dictate that more armed law abiding citizen translates into lower crime rates. The point I was trying to make in the previous paragraphs is that gun control laws cannot be counted on to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.
So where does that leave us? Anyone capable of critical thought would surmise that the most practical way to ensure the possibility of ones own safety and that of their family (it is impossible to guarantee ones own safety) would be to take proactive steps to be prepared to defend against an assault or attack by whatever legal and responsible means one feels most comfortable (and by legal, I refer to certain laws I hope come to pass in this state).
Self preservation and protection is inherent to human beings, it is in our very nature, a natural law. And thankfully out Constitution recognizes it as a national law.
Sorry for being so long-winded.
Looks like the deranged kid was a PhD neurosience candidate. That means he was probably smart enough to get around any laws the government might make that would deny him his weapons of choice.
I bet he watched The Daily Show.
A planned slaughter like the one last night was not one that could have been prevented by gun laws OR by an armed citizen. The guy had body armor and knew exactly what he was doing, much like the Columbine kids, Colonel Hassan and the Va Tech shooter. Granted, Hassan did get shot, but not until he’d killed what–15 people?
GolfDoc must not be a gunner. Even hits to a Kevlar vest are extremely distracting. Repeated hits gets the shooters attention taking it off the unarmed. Shifting the aim up 16″ gives you a chance to stop him completely. And as Mitch says, it couldn’t have hurt to have someone there trying.
Looks like you kooks got yourselves yet another Second Amendment hero.
Even if every movie goer had a gun, the best research into combat says that less than half would have the mental guts to pull the trigger, assuming they had a clear target.
College grads from California are your tribe, Angry Clown.
Maybe you can throw a fund raiser for his family?
“Colorado theater shooting suspect was neuroscience Ph.D student.”
Definitely a blue-stater. Us conservative, 2nd amendment types generally think that the Almighty takes care o’ what’s between yur ears.
So Terry, when you finally give in to the voices in your head and go on your inevitable rampage, you gonna blame blue-state Hawaii? Typical wingnut.
I’ve always wondered about the specific pathology that makes up angryclown’s mind. It’s been fascinating to observe over the years.
I think I know what your problem is, Angry Clown.
You are disaffected from America because you do not read enough Westerns.
Read The Virginian, by Owen Wister. It’s the grand-daddy of all the great things we real Americans love about cowboys stories.
The hero is strong, plain-spoken, hard-working, honest, and kind to animals.
The heroine is Molly, the plucky schoolmarm from back east who falls in love with the Virginian despite herself.
Wister wrote it as a metaphor. The East will never be complete until it accepts the West into itself as equal partner.
While you are reading The Virginian, you must identify only with the schoolmarm, not the cowboy. You will then feel your weak, arrogant self dissolve in a passionate embrace with strong, gun-toting America.
Beware of the cowhand named Trampas. Handsome though he may be, you will find that he is not above a little cattle rustling now and then.
The criminal code has an allowance for insanity. Lock them up for a long, long time and keep them heavily medicated.
Just heard on the gunners grapevine that the vest was not bulletproof, it was just a tactical vest, multiple pockets for magazines and gear but no Kevlar. I thought $300 sounded pretty cheap. The real stuff new runs over a grand or better.
Hearing this I really think even the average CWP would have been able to put a world of hurt on this guy.