In Shooting Reminiscent Of Superhero Storyline, Gun Control Is Most Important Issue
Comments (9)
The Joker. Photo by TovMauzer/Deviant Art
I guess a part of the reason I am so affected by it is the deep irony of where it happened—news reports have been quick to mention that at first, audience members thought that the gunshots and smoke were a part of the movie experience. But what doesn't seem to have been reported, probably because it's not an actual fact, is that this is the kind of thing Batman and other superheroes exist to prevent.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that Batman or any other superheroes actually exist, and I'm not pro-vigilante crime fighters, but the inherent irony strikes me. All over Facebook and Twitter, I've seen my friends and acquaintances reacting to what happened, and most of them cannot fathom how someone could do something so terrible. But all you have to do is look at Heath Ledger's Joker in "The Dark Knight" to see that there are some people who, inexplicably, "just want to watch the world burn," to quote Bruce Wayne's butler, Alfred.
Sure, the Joker is a character in comic books and a movie, but the sad reality is that sociopaths exist. Ted Bundy was real. The man who shot dozens of people at a midnight screening is real. And while I fully support creating a supportive environment for everyone so that tragedies like this occur less and less often, I think there's also a much more obvious response: better gun control.
People are quick to point out that even with gun control, there aren't any laws in place to prevent people without a history of violent tendencies from legally purchasing firearms that could then be used in a spree of violence, and that's true. But it seems to me that if it's more difficult to obtain guns, in general, gun-related violence will go down. People who are pro-gun rights may point to the second amendment of the Constitution and argue that the ability to carry weapons leads to civilians stopping crimes in their tracks before the police can even arrive at the scene. To them I say: first of all, you're interpreting the second amendment incorrectly - it's about arming a militia, of which you are not a part. Secondly, the state of Colorado allows citizens to carry concealed handguns with a permit, and that didn't exactly do anyone much good—because people are not expecting to get shot when they go to a midnight screening of a movie.
Sadly, the information that has come out so far indicates that James Holmes, the suspect in the Aurora shooting, obtained his arms, including an assault rifle, legally. I can't be the only one who finds it absurd that people can just walk into a sporting goods store and walk out with an automatic rifle capable of killing dozens of people in a matter of seconds. What purpose does that serve? I can't see how it would be useful for hunting or self-defense, especially when equipped with a drum clip (a magazine capable of holding up to 100 rounds)—the result of which really only seems to be violent, offensive crime.
And then there's the issue of illegally-obtained firearms. If you want another example from a superhero movie, just look at "Iron Man." Tony Stark was one of the biggest arms manufacturers in the world, only to find his own weapons turned against him - literally. Stark then went about systematically removing access to his weapons, which were being used illegally.
Again, Tony Stark isn't real, Iron Man isn't real, and I'm not endorsing individuals doing what his fictional character did. But isn't it time for our government and its agencies to "suit up" and do more to prevent the flow of all arms, legal and illegal?
Comments
"To them I say: first of all, you're interpreting the second amendment incorrectly - it's about arming a militia, of which you are not a part."
-Sorry asshole, but that question has been settled by the Supreme Court in two landmark decisions (DC vs. Heller in 2008, and Chicago vs. McDonald in 2010.) Of course, stubbornness goes with stupidity like peanut butter goes with jelly... so maybe I'm wasting my time typing this?
As a Brit I find it amazing that you can walk into a pawn-shop and walk out with an assault rifle... -but then again you don't even have universal healthcare so it shouldn't surprise me. But why are you Yanks so adamant to cling on to your archaic/almost medieval 'right' to bear arms- it bears no place in the modern world... I understand why its there- to ensue civil-liberties... but if government paranoia is so great it - amend the constitution so that your civil-liberties are protected through the courts/the UN... Viable -non-lethal- means of 'home defense' exist and will only become more viable as the technology advances (tazers etc). As it does your retarded "we need to protect our homes with assault-rifles" argument will seem more and more absurd...
Of all the reports I have read about the shooting not once did they mention an automatic weapon. They did mention a AK47 witch was later identified by the police as a AR15 they were able to track the sales So that tells me that the shooter bought all of his weapons legally and had a clean back ground check. to my knowledge no local big 5 sporting goods store sells class 3 weapons(full automatic ) witch require a form signed by the chief of police and a 300$ FEDERAL TAX along with the purchase of the weapon.
Now on to your concealed carry comment now imagine you have a license to carry a concealed weapon. You’re going to a midnight showing of a new movie there will be hundreds of people lined up just to get to the ticket counter and then in to the movie theater. You don’t know the people behind you or in front of you it’s just you and your significant other. Now ask your self is this really where you would want to be carrying a gun tucked in to your pants hidden under your shirt, in a hand bag or attached to your bra or ankle that someone else might see or worse yet take away from you. If your weapon is seen I can guarantee that it will cause a commotion
this is a CCW night mare its your gun and your responsibility to maintain control of your weapon and decide when and where to carry concealed and in this case I would have left my gun at home as well. But your statement is interesting “the state of Colorado allows citizens to carry concealed handguns with a permit, and that didn't exactly do anyone much good”
what that statement tells me is you don’t carry a gun but you want someone who is willing to go thru the trouble and legalities to get a CCW to protect you When situation like this shooting happen. Please do me a favor and listen to the BS you are spouting you want gun control but you want someone with a gun to save you.
Just like the what is mentioned above it is a constitutional right to own arms and protect ourselves. Gun control is not the issue. LUNATIC control is. If these people were stabbed to death, how about we ban all sharp objects. If these people were beaten and bchoked to death, how about we ban all forms of martial arts. Its American moronic dribble like yours that continually makes us look like the ignorant, bastard step-child. The basic fact remains "WE" are held accountable for our own actions. The last time I checked wether it be handgun auto or semi-auto it can't think for itself.
Good lord people your second ammendment interpretation is just plain stupid, and here is a question for all you gun control nuts, when was the last attorney hired to represent an AR-15 or a GLOCK-40 in court, oh lets see here!! never because it a stupid piece of metal that has not the ability to think or act. My god people spare us your ignorant constitution hind-sights and look at the FACTS, al-be it that may be to hard for some, this whacked out nut case goes into a movie screening starts shooting, laces his apartment with booby traps (that he found on the internet HEY lets ban that to) and all we can do is focus on gun control. How about lunatic control take this moster out and eucute him immediately and not put the families through our Mickey Mouse system over the next 30years that is what we need to take control of there is the tragedy on top of a tragedy
Whatever happened to raising the bar that gun and ammo sellers should be required before a sale is fostered? Yes it might offend the NRA and their lobbyists, but as long as we all agree to have guns there has to be a way to making ownership become a process of the highest possible diligence. Or is that too unpalatable?
http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2012/07/james-holmes-rejected-from-gun-c...
Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country and that has done a lot to decrease their crime rate...whoops!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/chicago-murder-rate-up_n_142038...
Horrible article. Did you fail US History? The 2nd admendment is not about arming the militia. It is clearly about arming the people. "the right of *the people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It would be nice if you actually did research and wrote a factual article instead of spewing BS.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
—Amendment II of the United States Constitution.