Unless you were stuck without access to any form of news media for the last week and this is the first digital media you have looked at since your loss of access to news media (I am grateful, but really?), you have been made aware of the events in Aurora, CO. A mentally disturbed (reportedly) young male went on a rampage using an AR-15 and two Glock pistols that resulted in 12 deaths and over 50 wounded. (The toll could have been higher but the AR-15 jammed).
Now we will hear from those who hate guns and U.S. gun culture. They will claim again that the guns killed people and that we should do something to keep guns away from people. These claims and thoughts will come from the usual suspects like the Brady Campaign and from respected academics (yes, this is my mentor and PhD advisor's blog) and will be challenged by the usual suspects. Since this debate will occur, I have decided to add my two cents.
First, I want to address reporting errors. Four guns is hardly an arsenal. Yep, the shooter owned four guns (AR-15, 2 Glock pistols, and a shotgun). Be honest, how many of us know people who own 20+ firearms? 20+ firearms might be a good start at a personal firearms arsenal. But, four is not an arsenal. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle, an AR-15 is an assault rifle clone. To actually qualify as an assault rifle, the rifle must be capable of full automatic fire (that is you must be able to pull the trigger once and empty the magazine), an AR-15 allows one bullet per pull of the trigger to be fired down range. The misguided notion regarding what is and what is not an assault rifle is the same sentiment that has us putting orange tips on toy gun barrels. Clips hold ammunition, they are not the vessel used to put ammunition in a firearm, those vessels that place ammunition in a firearm are called magazines. The difference is quite noticeable.
Aside from the reporting errors, the big question that should consume our thoughts is what should we do in response to this event and other similar events that happened in the past and might happen again in the future? After all, we are thoughtful human beings capable of finding solutions to problems. But to collectively find solutions means to collectively legislate. In making every issue political are we going too far? I think we are going too far, not every issue needs to be politicized. I ask the same question in regard to issues of value, lifestyle choices, etc. should we make everything a political question? I am a political scientist and I have real doubts about the efficacy of making so many things in our lives political questions. Governance is not the answer to all of life's problems.
What if we had laws limiting the number of firearms or type of firearms available? Do you really think this would stop someone determined to use firearms for deadly purposes (does the name Breivik ring a bell for anyone)? I think the answer is no. Indeed, the Aurora shooter was also a "brilliant science student" and police found his apartment heavily booby-trapped. The potential exists that this "shooter" could have been this "bomber". Manufacture of homemade explosive devices is not really that difficult and does not require an exorbitant amount of scientific knowledge, skill, or equipment, but with a higher aptitude or amount of knowledge, skill, or equipment...well, guess what is possible.
What if we had laws limiting the showing of movies after 8 pm? What if we had enforcement of laws limiting minors from being out after 10 pm without parent/guardian (I ask this because every city I have lived in has these types of laws and I have rarely seen them enforced)? So, Is there something we should do?
Operating from a premise of imperfect information (sorry news media, ya'll do not have the complete set of facts and probably never will, so neither will I), I do not believe there is a collective answer. I know what I will do based on my imperfect information. I will hope that due effort is made by law enforcement to ensure that the perpetrator of the shooting will be found, tried, convicted, penalized to the fullest extent of the law. I will continue to pray for the comfort and ease of pain for those who lost loved ones, friends, family in this ugly event.
Now we will hear from those who hate guns and U.S. gun culture. They will claim again that the guns killed people and that we should do something to keep guns away from people. These claims and thoughts will come from the usual suspects like the Brady Campaign and from respected academics (yes, this is my mentor and PhD advisor's blog) and will be challenged by the usual suspects. Since this debate will occur, I have decided to add my two cents.
First, I want to address reporting errors. Four guns is hardly an arsenal. Yep, the shooter owned four guns (AR-15, 2 Glock pistols, and a shotgun). Be honest, how many of us know people who own 20+ firearms? 20+ firearms might be a good start at a personal firearms arsenal. But, four is not an arsenal. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle, an AR-15 is an assault rifle clone. To actually qualify as an assault rifle, the rifle must be capable of full automatic fire (that is you must be able to pull the trigger once and empty the magazine), an AR-15 allows one bullet per pull of the trigger to be fired down range. The misguided notion regarding what is and what is not an assault rifle is the same sentiment that has us putting orange tips on toy gun barrels. Clips hold ammunition, they are not the vessel used to put ammunition in a firearm, those vessels that place ammunition in a firearm are called magazines. The difference is quite noticeable.
Aside from the reporting errors, the big question that should consume our thoughts is what should we do in response to this event and other similar events that happened in the past and might happen again in the future? After all, we are thoughtful human beings capable of finding solutions to problems. But to collectively find solutions means to collectively legislate. In making every issue political are we going too far? I think we are going too far, not every issue needs to be politicized. I ask the same question in regard to issues of value, lifestyle choices, etc. should we make everything a political question? I am a political scientist and I have real doubts about the efficacy of making so many things in our lives political questions. Governance is not the answer to all of life's problems.
What if we had laws limiting the number of firearms or type of firearms available? Do you really think this would stop someone determined to use firearms for deadly purposes (does the name Breivik ring a bell for anyone)? I think the answer is no. Indeed, the Aurora shooter was also a "brilliant science student" and police found his apartment heavily booby-trapped. The potential exists that this "shooter" could have been this "bomber". Manufacture of homemade explosive devices is not really that difficult and does not require an exorbitant amount of scientific knowledge, skill, or equipment, but with a higher aptitude or amount of knowledge, skill, or equipment...well, guess what is possible.
What if we had laws limiting the showing of movies after 8 pm? What if we had enforcement of laws limiting minors from being out after 10 pm without parent/guardian (I ask this because every city I have lived in has these types of laws and I have rarely seen them enforced)? So, Is there something we should do?
Operating from a premise of imperfect information (sorry news media, ya'll do not have the complete set of facts and probably never will, so neither will I), I do not believe there is a collective answer. I know what I will do based on my imperfect information. I will hope that due effort is made by law enforcement to ensure that the perpetrator of the shooting will be found, tried, convicted, penalized to the fullest extent of the law. I will continue to pray for the comfort and ease of pain for those who lost loved ones, friends, family in this ugly event.
No comments:
Post a Comment