Here is an explanation for the massacre in Aurora, CO that is likely wrong:
I have to think that all of this, whether it’s the Hollywood movies, whether it’s what we see on the internets, whether it’s liberal bias in the media, whether it’s our politicians changing public policy, I think all of those somehow have fit together—and I have to say also churches who are leaving the authority of Scripture and losing their fear of God—all of those things have seem to have come together to give us these kinds of incidents.
Or perhaps it's sociopathic trolls arguing that nutcases such as the one in Aurora have an inalienable right to acquire weapons of mass slaughter.
Weapons of mass slaughter? Nothing seems to turn America into two giant, diemetrically opposed circle jerks like guns do. The root problem here is health – social, psychological, and community. Small magazines and fixed stocks can't fix that. Mass killings per annum have increased since the 70s, straight through the "assault weapons ban", as I understand. These still rare events are no more suitable models for constructing gun control law than individual terrorist attacks are for constructing national security policy.
And from another angle, violence is power. As governments are the organization of violence, would not a nation built on the empowerment of the individual want individuals to retain a measure of violent capacity? This point is usually poorly and emotionally made by shitty people, but there is validity to be found in the sentiment. Our right to formulate our government as we see fit, and to be consenting participants therein, is our right to abdicate some individual violence for the good of the group. If an increasing number of citizens are incapable of managing their retained violence responsibly, it seems to me wiser to address the root problem than to allow the growth of an irresponsible and (therefore) unempowered population.
MK16,
You don't like my description of weapons designed to kill lots of people (not Turkeys) at once. But we seem to agree that there is an issue with considering the having of lots of firepower an inalienable right. That was a point of mine, at least.
no, i take issue with your hyperbole. civilians cannot easily or cheaply obtain weapons designed to kill lots of people at once; the relevant incident certainly did not involve one (as many have pointed out in response to the "shooting back is the solution" argument, the shooter utilized a situation that substantially increased his ability to kill a lot of folks, not simply his weapon of choice… which jammed anyway). i'm not really worried by the prospect of individuals having lots of firepower at their disposal. i'm much more concerned by our country's fetishization of violence, lack of universal healthcare, and the glacially slow change in the popular attitude towards psychological health/treatment. sane, healthy people don't massacre groups of other people – i can't really get behind the "take away the guns so the unhealthy and insane can be safer in their padded cell" solution.
According to news reports, he had a 100 round magazine on his AR 15 assault rifle. He seems to have purchased it easily and legally. Seems to be a way of killing lots of folks. That description, anyway, was not the main point of the post–which was about whether ownership of such weapons is an inalienable right.
Agreed on the mental health point; one other quibble: "take way the guns so the unhealthy people. . . " seems rather vague. I suggested (hyperbolically of course) maybe easy access to military-style firearms might be invovled in deaths by such firearms. But again, my quibble is with discussions about this topic. Your response is a perfect example. You suggest I (or someone whose view I share) hold a take away the guns absolutism. This is silly, as I didn't advance it. And no one else really does anyway. Limiting ownership of firearms, regulating, etc., that's different.
Yes, weapon specifics aren't the focus here, but they seem a rather important premise to your position. Given a list of the particular circumstances in Aurora (darkness, use of obscurant, presence of costumed movie-goers, stampeding, multiple firearms used), there were obviously a number of very effective "way[s] of killing lots of folks" being employed. Why does only one seem to be a valid tool of mass slaughter?<b><b>
Access to not-assault-rifles do indeed make killing with not-assault-rifles possible, but suggesting that their availability is the most relevant foil to the disgusting rants of evangelical americans misses the rather more important root issues. They're favorites of mass murderers, but assault-style weapons are the least statistically threatening of the three used in Aurora: they killed less people every year from '00 to '09 than shotguns did (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.xls). So only during still quite rare mass murders are not-assault-rifles the most threatening type.<b><b>
And if we're being as honest and objective as possible here, tactical surprise is the only reason mass murders are as successful as they are. But guns are scary, and you can't regulate tactical surprise. I apologize if I was unclear, I didn't mean to imply you held an absolutionist position; rather, while I agree that firearm regulation is necessary, I really object to the sort of "regulation" that comes from alarmist reaction to statistical anomalies.<b><b>
I suppose we still don't see eye-to-eye on this, but I do appreciate the talk! Keep up the good work around here.
Right. See previous posts on reactions, see also today's post on assault weapons.