The Aurora Shooting–A Surprisingly Quiet Voice

The shooting that took place last week in Aurora, Colorado has revealed a surprisingly quiet voice.

Yes, we have the usual debate that starts up whenever something like this happens – a debate between the people who support the right to bear arms, including guns that can shoot 50+ armor-piercing rounds per minute and the people who want to see guns banned altogether.

Then we have the ridiculous, absurd claims of John Lott, author of “More Guns, Less Crime” who asserts that if more people had guns, then they could defend themselves at events like the Aurora shooting before the police arrive and thus such crimes would become a thing of the past or reduced in devastation.

When one considers such a claim, how many events like the Aurora event, whether it be that event itself, Columbine, Virginia Tech or any other, did we have people who were armed and able to defend themselves against armed assailants?

Exactly.

And besides, the last thing we need is a theater full of untrained people with itchy trigger fingers who hear the wrong sound and just start shooting.

Imagine what that massacre would look like – with no actual assailant and no other reason than a simple mistake that caused everyone to start shooting in all directions.

Truth is, not many of us carry guns to the theater, to school or most places where our day takes us.  Many of these places now have security measures in place where citizens are screened by metal detectors and the like and so they couldn’t have their weapons with them anyway.

The law-abiding ones anyway. 

People who are intent on committing crimes find a way …. just like a certain airline that has a Rome to NYC flight several times a week where weapons are routinely found planted on planes.  No one knows why or how, whether it be  terrorists making plans, terrorists evaluating options or the good guys testing the system.

The point is that people with evil intention will find a way no matter what people believe to the contrary.

The Silent Voice

All that being said, there is a voice that is relatively silent on the matter and I find the silence intriguing.

I’m not hearing a lot of noise one way or the other from law enforcement.

If I were in law enforcement or had a significant attachment to someone in law enforcement, I would feel a level of concern about the types of weapons out there.

Now I know that when law enforcement responds to a call that involves violence, they have to assume the worst is possible when it comes to the weapons they may face.

But there’s a big difference between being prepared for the worst and only facing a 12-gauge shotgun or a hunting rifle versus actually having to deal with a guy in full tactical gear firing a weapon that can penetrate law enforcement body armor.

And when it comes to defending one’s self in a crowded space, one has a better change of surviving or even overcoming the shooter if the shooter is not armed with an assault rifle, capable of having a 100-round drum magazine that shoots armor piercing bullets.

There Will Always Be Violence

It has been said that if we ban guns, then we will have to kill each other with knives, clubs and other messy things.

So people will always kill people, no matter what we give them access to.

However, do we have to make it so easy for them and so difficult for us to defend against?

If people like Lott are to be listened to, it suggests that I need to bring an assault rifle wherever I go in case someone else pulls his or hers out.  I’m not going to bring anything smaller – it would be like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

But if we all start carrying weapons such as that, then it will feel more like 1920’s Chicago than 21st century America.

And it will make the jobs of law enforcement that much more difficult.

Imagine Occupy Wall St. last fall if one had to assume that everyone there had an assault rifle.

We wouldn’t need police to oversee their activity.  We’d need the National Guard.

Why Bother To Change This?

I wonder how President Obama or Mitt Romney would have reacted if someone they knew had been injured there.  Regardless of their personal beliefs, they know that this is a hot potato that they can’t touch.  Their personal needs trump what they may believe to be right for the citizens they allegedly represent.

Unfortunately, it’s easy to shrug off responsibility to make change until we are directly affected by it, after which we can’t make change fast enough.

In a situation like this, why should we wait to make the world a better place for everyone? 

To do nothing suggests that history teaches us that history teaches us nothing.

I’d like to believe that the life of a six year old girl like the one who was killed in Aurora is more important than the paranoia that we each face imminent attack and therefore must defend ourselves against it.

I’d like to believe that politicians and lobbyists would put the safety of citizens above their own personal needs but then again, I gave up believing in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny so that one may be too much to believe in.

However, I’d like to believe that we can produce a better result than we are producing.

What do you believe?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS  Some years ago, the administrative assistant for one of my clients went out and got her handgun licence and was carrying the weapon in her purse.

Why did she obtain the weapon?  It was because she was tired of being jostled on the crowded subway in the morning and felt that she needed a deterrent to assert her private space.

Who faces imminent danger in such a situation - the person whose fuse is on slow burn waiting for someone to bump into her or the unfortunate person who stumbles into her by accident?

By the way …. she still carries the weapon on her daily commute …. waiting ……

Addendum: July 25, 2012

I want to be clear that I am NOT against gun ownership.  However, I am against guns designed to kill people en masse (for example, the 100-round drum magazine that the Aurora shooter used) or use ammunition specifically designed to defeat the personal defense systems of law enforcement or military units such as the National Guard.  I would only buy armor piercing ammunition if I knew I needed to pierce armor and currently, such armor is primarily used by the afore mentioned law enforcement groups.

So, if I need to have such ammunition, what does this say about my intentions?

As for everyone carrying guns in public, I still believe that such a policy exposes us to a different kind of problem.  Here is an example of road rage settled by guns that is getting more and more common.  People with guns are more apt to use them if their anger runs hot enough.  It only takes one side of an argument to pull the weapon (even if just as an intimidation) but once that happens, all bets are off - not only for the people carrying the weapons but for any innocent bystanders in the area.

Addendum: July 26, 2012

In fairness to the President, he noted in a speech to the National Urban League in New Orleans on July 25, 2012:

I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminal.

True words.

Now – how do words become action and subsequently policy?

That’s where it really matters!