Did you hear about the GOP Senator who said that, since he believes all life is sacred, and since he would therefore do anything in his power to make it as difficult as possible for women to obtain abortions, he must also do everything he can to make it as difficult as possible for unstable lunatics to obtain guns whose only logical purpose is to kill as many as possible as quickly as possible? Did you hear about him? Yeah, neither did I.
***********************************
Obviously, the more guns there are in a society, the more stable that society is going to be. Just ask the folks in Afghanistan. Or Ciudad Juarez.
***********************************
Remember that time that a heavily-armed, law-abiding citizen stopped that maniac who was about to open fire on a crowd of helpless people? And how everybody said, "Thank God for the Second Amendment, or this would have been so much worse!" Remember that? Yeah, me neither.
************************************
The right of American citizens to own guns is what separates this freedom-loving, democratic nation from all those totalitarian dictatorships around the world. You know, like England.
Showing posts with label Batman Shootings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Batman Shootings. Show all posts
Monday, July 23, 2012
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Never Mind Yelling--What about OPENING Fire in a Crowded Theater?
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?
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?
Friday, July 20, 2012
OK, But Aside from THAT, How Was the Movie?
Yeah, yeah. . . . Send your complaints to Solipsist Central.
As the nation absorbs this latest example of chaos in our midst, I brace myself for certain inevitabilities.
The pundits will do what pundits do: pontificate. Already we've had the predictable calls for increased gun control, which I generally agree with, but which may or may not be all that relevant. A lot depends on whether "alleged" shooter James Holmes came by his guns legally. Considering that he was a PhD candidate in neuroscience, I suspect Holmes would have had no trouble obtaining whatever weapons he wanted legally, which certainly would call into question the wisdom of existing gun regulations. On the other hand, if it turns out the guns were purchased illegally, then the issue is really not so much that we need more gun laws, but that we must just better enforce the ones we have. At any rate, this is not the most annoying inevitability.
The presidential candidates both responded appropriately, expressing sympathy with the victims and their families and curtailing political activities for at least a day or two. No one's much in the mood for vitriolic rhetoric right now--with the possible exception of one Texas douchebag who claims that the shootings were a result of the "ongoing attacks" on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Kinda makes one hopeful that the next news cycle will bring revelations that Holmes was molested by priests at an early age.
Really, though, while it's somewhat reassuring to see both President Obama and Mitt Romney slip easily into the role of Comforter-in-Chief, this kind of event presents a political no-brainer. When tragedy strikes, anyone aspiring to high political office has got to know enough to drop whatever he or she is doing and respond. Only a total moron would go on conducting business as usual or, say, reading "My Pet Goat." Just sayin'.
These political response, however, are also not the most annoying inevitabilities.
No, my eye-rolling arises after seeing the immediate flooding of every movie-theater across America with reporters running up to people and asking if they are now worried about going to see movies in general and "The Dark Night Rises" in particular. Unsurprisingly, most people--because they are not congentially stupid--express little personal concern about their odds of making it home alive from the 3:40 showing. Sure, what James Holmes did--"allegedly"--is horrifying, but since all signs so far suggest that Holmes was a lone psychopath and not part of some Qaeda-esque jihad against all things Batman, why would this stop anyone from going to the movies? Any individual audience member is far more likely to suffer injury or death in a car accident going to or from the multiplex than from anything that happens within the theater itself. (They should, however avoid the popcorn "butter"--that stuff WILL kill you.)
Sadly, random acts of violence and mayhem have become a part of the fabric of American culture. But movies have long been a much bigger part of that culture. As one blogger has pointed out, one truly sad aspect of this shooting is that it took place during a screening of a film that, in a way that few movies do anymore, brings people together in a sort of communal celebration--a shared experience the likes of which grow ever-rarer in these days of high-end home-entertainment systems and internet-enabled fragmentation. This shooting should not make people afraid to go to movies; it should make them fear what I suspect we'll discover is the crippling sense of isolation that drives the James Holmeses of the world to murder.
As the nation absorbs this latest example of chaos in our midst, I brace myself for certain inevitabilities.
The pundits will do what pundits do: pontificate. Already we've had the predictable calls for increased gun control, which I generally agree with, but which may or may not be all that relevant. A lot depends on whether "alleged" shooter James Holmes came by his guns legally. Considering that he was a PhD candidate in neuroscience, I suspect Holmes would have had no trouble obtaining whatever weapons he wanted legally, which certainly would call into question the wisdom of existing gun regulations. On the other hand, if it turns out the guns were purchased illegally, then the issue is really not so much that we need more gun laws, but that we must just better enforce the ones we have. At any rate, this is not the most annoying inevitability.
The presidential candidates both responded appropriately, expressing sympathy with the victims and their families and curtailing political activities for at least a day or two. No one's much in the mood for vitriolic rhetoric right now--with the possible exception of one Texas douchebag who claims that the shootings were a result of the "ongoing attacks" on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Kinda makes one hopeful that the next news cycle will bring revelations that Holmes was molested by priests at an early age.
Really, though, while it's somewhat reassuring to see both President Obama and Mitt Romney slip easily into the role of Comforter-in-Chief, this kind of event presents a political no-brainer. When tragedy strikes, anyone aspiring to high political office has got to know enough to drop whatever he or she is doing and respond. Only a total moron would go on conducting business as usual or, say, reading "My Pet Goat." Just sayin'.
These political response, however, are also not the most annoying inevitabilities.
No, my eye-rolling arises after seeing the immediate flooding of every movie-theater across America with reporters running up to people and asking if they are now worried about going to see movies in general and "The Dark Night Rises" in particular. Unsurprisingly, most people--because they are not congentially stupid--express little personal concern about their odds of making it home alive from the 3:40 showing. Sure, what James Holmes did--"allegedly"--is horrifying, but since all signs so far suggest that Holmes was a lone psychopath and not part of some Qaeda-esque jihad against all things Batman, why would this stop anyone from going to the movies? Any individual audience member is far more likely to suffer injury or death in a car accident going to or from the multiplex than from anything that happens within the theater itself. (They should, however avoid the popcorn "butter"--that stuff WILL kill you.)
Sadly, random acts of violence and mayhem have become a part of the fabric of American culture. But movies have long been a much bigger part of that culture. As one blogger has pointed out, one truly sad aspect of this shooting is that it took place during a screening of a film that, in a way that few movies do anymore, brings people together in a sort of communal celebration--a shared experience the likes of which grow ever-rarer in these days of high-end home-entertainment systems and internet-enabled fragmentation. This shooting should not make people afraid to go to movies; it should make them fear what I suspect we'll discover is the crippling sense of isolation that drives the James Holmeses of the world to murder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)