While the echo of the gunshots was still in the air, the usual anti gun crowd again began the call for more gun control. New York Mayor Bloomberg was one of the first out of the gate calling for tougher laws.
Exactly how much more gun control would have been required to prevent the horrible murders in Aurora, Colorado? The theater was a “gun free safe zone” and Colorado has already closed the Gun Show “Loophole” that seems to get the loudest cries whenever there is a shooting in states that have not clamped down on what are essentially private gun sales.
And Aurora, Colorado does allow concealed weapons permits, but it is against the law to actually shoot the gun you are carrying unless you are at a shooting range.
So, essentially, even if the theater didn’t already ban guns, using a gun to stop the shooter would have landed the hero in jail.
So, do we need changes in the gun laws?
It is utterly ridiculous for a state or locality to issue concealed carry permits and also have a law on the books that outlaws using the weapon even if your life is in danger.
What’s the point in having a weapon if you can’t use it legally to protect your own life or the lives of others?
Apparently, the laws of Aurora and Colorado as well as the rules of the theater worked. Nobody had a gun except the killer. Ironically, the act of mass murder is already against the law in every state and that failed to deter the gunman.
This pretty much proves the theory that law abiding citizens will obey the law and law breakers will ignore the law.
And while the murders in some other mass killing incidents have had serious signs of mental imbalance that was ignored by our politically correct society, such as the Fort Hood killer who was a radical Muslim and the Virginia Tech killer who showed signs of serious mental impairment. In the Fort Hood case, signs of potential trouble were ignored out of fear of offending Muslims and the Va. Tech killer was able to buy firearms because authorities did not want the “stigma” of mental illness on the mass murder’s record.
So far, the Colorado killer was nothing more than a bit eccentric. Something of a loner. But most who knew him didn’t really get the vibe of sociopath and mass murderer. By all accounts, he was very bright. A great student, although his academic performance in seeking his PHD had become less than stellar and he was in the process of dropping out of school.
An early statement by his mother that authorities “had the right man” is the exception to the otherwise normal-ish young man turned mass killer.
So how can we prevent this type of thing from happening again?
While some cases such as this seem to have a number of warning signs that were missed, there were few obvious red flags here. And short of Obama issuing a presidential order to ignore the 2nd Amendment and round up all the guns in America (which is something those on the left would love to see), what can be done to stop a killer such as this, or at least mitigate the deaths and injuries?
Since the guns are not going away, and as the bans in the theater prove, someone willing to ignore the death penalty isn’t really going to worry about being asked to leave the theater, is there another option?
Of course there is. There are a number of options.
We could station millions of armed guards and police every few feet all across the country. Expensive and impracticable.
We could totally ban guns and in a thousand years or so the millions of guns already in circulation will probably rust and become unusable.
We could make it harder to get guns, but as we have learned, killers and criminals are going to get the guns anyway and use them against an unarmed and defenseless public.
But this killer was apparently pretty informed on making explosives. Had he set off some home made bombs in a packed theater, the odds are that the number of dead would be far higher either from the initial blast or from the fire that would surely follow.
We already have police. They were actually in the theater complex, but not in the theaters themselves. It still took long enough to respond that 71 people were killed or shot, even with police in the building.
The answer is obvious. We should encourage more citizens to arm themselves to provide the first line of defense in case the unthinkable happens. Even a killer in body armor is vulnerable from some angle. And dealing with people shooting back would at least serve as enough of a distraction to allow more people to escape and police officers to respond.
At least 3 hero’s gave their lives shielding others in that theater, and there were probably more. There were a lot of members of the Armed Forces in the theater, all of them unarmed and thwarted by Colorado laws from firing even if they did have a weapon.
On 9/11, the plane that went down in the middle of Pennsylvania had several hero’s aboard that shielded a lot of people in Washington.
In any given situation, ordinary citizens do the extraordinary to protect and defend those they love and even total strangers.
We have enough guns in this country that there is no way to keep them out of the hands of people willing to face the death penalty in order to kill.
But we do have a shortage of guns in the hands of hero’s.
Gun laws need to be based in reality. Shutting down private sales of guns, or “loopholes” as the anti gun lobby calls them did nothing in Colorado. Further restricting gun ownership and use by potential hero’s is counterproductive and will lead to more mass killings.
We need to stop the political correctness and face reality when it comes to mentally unstable people and radicals. And local law enforcement should offer free training sessions that are based on the likelihood of private citizens being in a situation like the ones in Colorado and Virginia Tech. And locking up weapons on a military base is absolutely crazy.
The fact is, it will take the police (or the MP’s) some time to respond and secure any such situation.
If there was a good possibility that there would be several armed individuals in the theater that night, or at Fort Hood or Va Tech, that would likely serve to do what the possibility of a death sentence did not. These people intent on mass murder would have to calculate a far lower chance of “success” in killing a lot of innocent people and the very real probability of being gunned down themselves after only a shot or two.
Banks face armed robberies all the time, but to my knowledge, no one has even attempted an armed robbery at a gun show.
We need changes in the gun laws that accept the fact that the best protection when someone starts shooting into a crowd is honest, law abiding citizens that are ready to respond in these horrific situations.
I prefer shaking the hand of a live hero who dispatched a killer within his Second Amendment rights than attending the funeral of a dead hero who gave his or her life to protect others.