There is little that could have been done, I suppose, to anticipate and prevent what happened in the Denver cinema complex when James Holmes opened fire and killed twelve people, and injured many more. Where guns are easily available, it is always on the cards that someone mad or bad will put one to use in an ugly, dangerous, and random killing spree.
Could this have been different had Holmes' access to weaponry been more restricted? It seems incredible that he was able to amass a small arsenal, a Glock pistol, a shotgun, an AR-15 rifle, and, oh yes, another pistol, together with 6000 rounds of ammo, bought over the internet, without anyone, it seems, being aware of able to monitor this. For some of us who live outside the US, the love affair of many of its citizens with guns, and the strength of the pro-gun lobby, is bewildering.
The appeal to the Second Amendment as a way of legitimizing allowing citizens to be armed like modern combat troops is a case of poor "exegesis" and wildly mistaken interpretation, surely? The basis of that addition to the Constitution was the need for "a well-regulated Militia", and drafted when the US had no standing army to speak of, and citizens were armed with muskets and flintlocks, not the semi-automatic and assault rifles available today.
But it is the idea that more guns are needed for "self-defence" that is the most incredibly illogical of all. How often have guns been used in "self-defence" as compared with occasions when they have been used for criminal activity and random violence. The most recent case in which "self-defence" was trotted out, as I recall, was the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman in Florida in February. It does seem that Zimmerman was being beaten up by Trayvon, when he shot the unarmed young man. But this was a situation entirely of his own making. When he reported his suspicions to his 911 dispatcher, he was told to stop following Trayvon. He ignored this advice, and provoked an altercation. And who's is to say that the young black man, who had no idea I guess what Zimmerman was about, was not just as panicked. The case caused an uproar, fueled partly no doubt by Zimmerman's claim of "self-defence", as well as the suggestion that he had "racially profiled" Trayvon.
Nevertheless, in the case of this latest massacre, gun lobby supporters have energetically opposed tighter restrictions. As reported in The New Zealand Herald (26/07/2012; A17), when Colorado Congressman Ed Perlmutter pushed for tighter restrictions, "he received invective on his Facebook page from gun lobby supporters. One post read, 'If ONE person inside that theatre was armed, this situation would NOT have been as bad as it is'." And it is reported in today's paper (The New Zealand Herald, 28/07/2012) in an "opinion piece" by Paul Thomas, that "[t]here are influential voices arguing that the massacre whould have been curtailed if not for the ban on guns in film theatres. 'Had someone been prepared and armed', said a former Arizona state senator, 'they could've stopped this bad man.'"
"This assumes", goes on Thomas, "that when people used to shooting holes in cardboard cut-outs come under live fire, they will react like a SWAT team veteran." Indeed. And let's run the scenario as it is equally likely to turn out:
"My client, Mr. Walter Mitty, maintains, your Honour, that he intended to get a clean shot at the shooter. Unfortunately, it seems, it was at that moment that Johnny Appleseed chose to try and make his escape from the theatre, and he got in the line of fire."
Or, perhaps this: "After about 30 seconds after the gunman opened up," the witness said, "this other guy got out a gun and fired at the shooter. Unfortunately, his first shot wasn't on target and he hit Johnny Appleseed instead". And what, I ask, were the panicked cinema-goers to have thought when a second gunman started firing: that a hero had come to their rescue, or that the first gunman had an accomplice, or there was another madman in the house? And, if an armed policeman had been nearby and burst in, who would he shoot first?
Nonetheless, in "Walter Mitty" Land, people are queuing up to buy themselves a weapon. "At Rocky Mountain Guns and Ammo", reports the first of the Herald articles mentioned above, "there was a queue of more than 15 people outside the store when it opened on Saturday, and sales have since been brisk. 'It's been insane,' store employee Jake Meyers told the Denver newspaper, 'A lot of people are saying, "I didn't think I needed a gun, but now I do." When it happens in your backyard, people start reassessing - "Hey, I go to the movies" '."
Insane, indeed. Surely to goodness, a safe society is one in which there are fewer guns not more? What is needed is regulation of gun sales, and better monitoring systems. There ought to be ways, in this modern age of sophisticated weaponry, of devising sophisticated ways of recording who has guns, how many and what type. A requirement that gun owners, and purchasers, carry a card that has their photo on it and a swipe system that registers in a central database when they purchase from a store (rather like EFTPOS). Internet sales ought also to be logged. Anyone who is not up to mischief ought not to mind this "invasion of privacy": after all, we allow it for much else. But, above all, there is no need for ordinary Joe citizens to be buying semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 and AK47. When it comes to the Second Amendment, more attention ought to be paid to the phrase "a well regulated Militia", than "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". If people now feel unsafe in shopping malls and cinema complexes, rather than rush out and buy guns, lobby and push for there to be more well-trained and prepared security personnel, ready and readily available to respond to such crises as happened in Denver. Yes, Mr. Senator, someone who is not only armed, but prepared, ready for such eventualities.
But better, by far, is to create a society less armed and dangerous. Less in love with the gun. Less "Walter Mitty"ish: bewitched by ideas of "heroes" who will be able to react coolly and calmly, instincts honed and quick, like the Hollywood heroes from Batman to Captain America, able to act in "self-defence" and in defence of the other innocents. But, it is only in Hollywood's Wild West (of yesteryear) where White Hat and Black Hat faced off and stared each other down for several minutes.
In the real "Wild West" it soon became apparent that the best recourse was to call in the Sherriff.
Postscript: For those who may not know, "Walter Mitty" is a mild-mannered man in one of James Thurber's tales who daydreams and fantasizes that he is the hero in several dangerous or challenging situations. In one of his fantasies, if I recall correctly, he is in a battle..."pockata-pockata..."
Could this have been different had Holmes' access to weaponry been more restricted? It seems incredible that he was able to amass a small arsenal, a Glock pistol, a shotgun, an AR-15 rifle, and, oh yes, another pistol, together with 6000 rounds of ammo, bought over the internet, without anyone, it seems, being aware of able to monitor this. For some of us who live outside the US, the love affair of many of its citizens with guns, and the strength of the pro-gun lobby, is bewildering.
The appeal to the Second Amendment as a way of legitimizing allowing citizens to be armed like modern combat troops is a case of poor "exegesis" and wildly mistaken interpretation, surely? The basis of that addition to the Constitution was the need for "a well-regulated Militia", and drafted when the US had no standing army to speak of, and citizens were armed with muskets and flintlocks, not the semi-automatic and assault rifles available today.
But it is the idea that more guns are needed for "self-defence" that is the most incredibly illogical of all. How often have guns been used in "self-defence" as compared with occasions when they have been used for criminal activity and random violence. The most recent case in which "self-defence" was trotted out, as I recall, was the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman in Florida in February. It does seem that Zimmerman was being beaten up by Trayvon, when he shot the unarmed young man. But this was a situation entirely of his own making. When he reported his suspicions to his 911 dispatcher, he was told to stop following Trayvon. He ignored this advice, and provoked an altercation. And who's is to say that the young black man, who had no idea I guess what Zimmerman was about, was not just as panicked. The case caused an uproar, fueled partly no doubt by Zimmerman's claim of "self-defence", as well as the suggestion that he had "racially profiled" Trayvon.
Nevertheless, in the case of this latest massacre, gun lobby supporters have energetically opposed tighter restrictions. As reported in The New Zealand Herald (26/07/2012; A17), when Colorado Congressman Ed Perlmutter pushed for tighter restrictions, "he received invective on his Facebook page from gun lobby supporters. One post read, 'If ONE person inside that theatre was armed, this situation would NOT have been as bad as it is'." And it is reported in today's paper (The New Zealand Herald, 28/07/2012) in an "opinion piece" by Paul Thomas, that "[t]here are influential voices arguing that the massacre whould have been curtailed if not for the ban on guns in film theatres. 'Had someone been prepared and armed', said a former Arizona state senator, 'they could've stopped this bad man.'"
"This assumes", goes on Thomas, "that when people used to shooting holes in cardboard cut-outs come under live fire, they will react like a SWAT team veteran." Indeed. And let's run the scenario as it is equally likely to turn out:
"My client, Mr. Walter Mitty, maintains, your Honour, that he intended to get a clean shot at the shooter. Unfortunately, it seems, it was at that moment that Johnny Appleseed chose to try and make his escape from the theatre, and he got in the line of fire."
Or, perhaps this: "After about 30 seconds after the gunman opened up," the witness said, "this other guy got out a gun and fired at the shooter. Unfortunately, his first shot wasn't on target and he hit Johnny Appleseed instead". And what, I ask, were the panicked cinema-goers to have thought when a second gunman started firing: that a hero had come to their rescue, or that the first gunman had an accomplice, or there was another madman in the house? And, if an armed policeman had been nearby and burst in, who would he shoot first?
Nonetheless, in "Walter Mitty" Land, people are queuing up to buy themselves a weapon. "At Rocky Mountain Guns and Ammo", reports the first of the Herald articles mentioned above, "there was a queue of more than 15 people outside the store when it opened on Saturday, and sales have since been brisk. 'It's been insane,' store employee Jake Meyers told the Denver newspaper, 'A lot of people are saying, "I didn't think I needed a gun, but now I do." When it happens in your backyard, people start reassessing - "Hey, I go to the movies" '."
Insane, indeed. Surely to goodness, a safe society is one in which there are fewer guns not more? What is needed is regulation of gun sales, and better monitoring systems. There ought to be ways, in this modern age of sophisticated weaponry, of devising sophisticated ways of recording who has guns, how many and what type. A requirement that gun owners, and purchasers, carry a card that has their photo on it and a swipe system that registers in a central database when they purchase from a store (rather like EFTPOS). Internet sales ought also to be logged. Anyone who is not up to mischief ought not to mind this "invasion of privacy": after all, we allow it for much else. But, above all, there is no need for ordinary Joe citizens to be buying semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 and AK47. When it comes to the Second Amendment, more attention ought to be paid to the phrase "a well regulated Militia", than "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". If people now feel unsafe in shopping malls and cinema complexes, rather than rush out and buy guns, lobby and push for there to be more well-trained and prepared security personnel, ready and readily available to respond to such crises as happened in Denver. Yes, Mr. Senator, someone who is not only armed, but prepared, ready for such eventualities.
But better, by far, is to create a society less armed and dangerous. Less in love with the gun. Less "Walter Mitty"ish: bewitched by ideas of "heroes" who will be able to react coolly and calmly, instincts honed and quick, like the Hollywood heroes from Batman to Captain America, able to act in "self-defence" and in defence of the other innocents. But, it is only in Hollywood's Wild West (of yesteryear) where White Hat and Black Hat faced off and stared each other down for several minutes.
In the real "Wild West" it soon became apparent that the best recourse was to call in the Sherriff.
Postscript: For those who may not know, "Walter Mitty" is a mild-mannered man in one of James Thurber's tales who daydreams and fantasizes that he is the hero in several dangerous or challenging situations. In one of his fantasies, if I recall correctly, he is in a battle..."pockata-pockata..."
