Miles's blog

On so many levels, the horrific murder perpetrated in Aurora last week is disturbing.  The idea that an activity so mundane and benign as going to a movie (albeit a violent one at midnight) could result in a mass murder shakes all of us to our very cores.  Those of us with children want to hold them a little closer.  The long criminal justice process has only just begun and we will live with this crime every day for a long time.

One of the more disturbing aspects of this tragedy is the startling, but perhaps not completely unexpected, response of people in America—gun purchases and concealed weapons permit applications have increaseddramatically.  Apparently, in the minds of many people, the answer to gun violence is more guns.  And while I understand the initial, visceral, reaction, this trend causes me great consternation.  Guns, I fear, more often bring tragedy than protection.

It is important to note, I think, that more guns in the movie theater would have not increased safety one iota.  The shooter was dressed from head to toe in body armor, perhaps anticipating the presence of concealed weapons on Colorado moviegoers.  (There appear to have been none.)  Had anyone pulled out a handgun, the best result would have been no more than somewhat of a distraction to the murderer.  More likely is that innocent victims would have suffered gunshot injuries.  And how effective could the handguns most people want to carry be against the fully automatic weapon used in this crime?  The killer carried 100-bullet magazine clips and fired dozens of rounds per second.   Even a skilled marksman with a handgun would have been helpless.

Sure, there are stories occasionally of liquor store owners foiling robbery attempts by pulling a shotgun out from behind the counter, or homeowners shooting the random burglar.  But there are many more stories of drunk and angry husbands shooting wives, and curious children accidentally shooting themselves or someone else. 

Gun advocates contend guns make us safer.   Law-abiding gun owners, the argument goes, serve as a deterrent, because would-be carjackers hesitate to act, knowing every driver is a potential crack shot.   Perhaps there is something to this, although I am dubious.  I am far more convinced that guns appear in the hands of people in the worst of circumstances—when under the influence of alcohol, while suffering from emotional trauma, or in what military people call “the fog of war.”  Guns provide a sense of bravado which allows people (mostly men) to take a stand when perhaps discretion is the better part of valor. 

The idea that untrained, or marginally trained, gun owners would be able to make responsible shoot/don’t shoot decision and then to fire accurately is, to me, a myth.  Police officers go through extensive and intensive training on firearms usage, including quarterly qualification.  Even then, they sometimes make bad decisions or suffer from poor shooting.  They are sober, experienced, and, hopefully, unemotional about the situation.  Contrast that with the random Coloradoan who packs his Glock inside his shorts or has a .22 strapped to his ankle. 

Every year police officers are shot with their own weapon.  I assume many others are also.  More guns running around the streets allow for more opportunities for this sort of thing to take place.  More guns in people’s home are more guns for burglars to steal.

I realize that the Second Amendment, the way it has been interpreted, severely limits the government’s ability to control gun possession, but I fail to see how a machine gun is necessary for self-protection.  There obviously have to be some limits on weapon possession, despite the words of the amendment.  Otherwise, people could own an atomic bomb (although arguably, I suppose, a nuclear weapon is not “arms” that people could bear). 

I will be moving back to Colorado soon.  Many people around me will be carrying weapons, I suppose.  I hope they are sober, responsible, and cautious.  But I fear they won’t be.