Following up on yesterday's post, it now appears that James Holmes, the "alleged" (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) shooter in the Colorado movie-theater massacre, purchased all his guns and ammunition legally. So, I will now go ahead and say what I thought I would say yesterday: This country needs seriously to rethink its attitudes toward gun-control.
Of course, some of our more right-wing brethren suggest that gun restrictions are, in this case, part of the problem. They claim that, if only--if only!--someone else in the theater had been armed! He or she could have taken out James Holmes and put an end to his rampage. I think this claim deserves serious . . . consideration.
Let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that someone else--some responsible, law-abiding citizen--at that ill-fated midnight show had been carrying a gun--
--and frankly, I find it difficult to believe no one else was carrying. This was a packed theater--several hundred people, including, we now know, several members of the military. Furthermore, this occurred in Colorado--not the reddest of red states, sure, but a Western state with a somewhat relaxed attitude toward personal gun ownership. Is it really reasonable to assume that not one other person in the theater was packing heat? Still, let's go along with the right-wing argument that overly restrictive gun-control laws keep guns out of the hands of everybody--except apparently unstable lunatics.
Where were we? Ah, yes. Let's assume that someone else at the theater had been carrying a gun when James Holmes burst in and began his rampage. What would have happened?
Holmes would still have enjoyed the advantage of surprise. Apparently, several moviegoers at first thought the whole thing was some kind of publicity stunt. Not unreasonable: This was a premiere of a major blockbuster--an action movie--and based on descriptions of Holmes' attire, it sounds like he closely enough resembled one of the film's characters that most viewers, in a festive mood and certainly not anticipating danger, would suspected nothing was wrong, at least until they realized that the smoke-bombs Holmes released contained real tear gas or some other irritant. And then, of course, the shooting started.
So now, imagine what confronts our hypothetical hero--sitting somewhere with her pistol tucked in her purse: A darkened theater, filling up with caustic smoke (to which, of course, she is not immune), and dozens of people screaming and frantically trying to escape the carnage. If she actually tried to shoot Holmes, what are the odds she would hit him and not one of her fellow theatergoers? For that matter, the shooter was reportedly wearing all manner of body armor; unless our hero were carrying a very powerful little gun, and/or found herself right next to Holmes so she could shoot him directly in the head, it seems unlikely she could have been all that effective. Given the circumstances, unless you're a member of Seal Team Six, or maybe Andy Garcia's character from "The Untouchables," your best course of action would have been to leave the gun in your purse or pocket and hightail it out of the theater with the rest of the audience.
********************************************
Honestly, I don't know what the solution is. Of course, people determined to commit gun-fueled mayhem will find a way to arm themselves despite any laws that gun-control proponents manage to pass. But, seriously, could we just maybe consider making things a bit more difficult for the James Holmeses of the world? Surely some middle ground exists between outlawing guns altogether and allowing absolutely anybody anywhere to buy as many guns and as much ammunition as the market will bear? Surely it's not unreasonable for law-abiding citizens to want some assurance that the guy walking down the street toward them is not packing more firepower than an average Israeli commando unit?
Is it?
No comments:
Post a Comment