Of course it won’t. These things happen. Yes, if this James Holmes character had been armed with, say, a bolt-action Remington, he would have been able to kill fewer Batman fans before being wrestled to ground and beaten senseless. Three or four tops, as opposed to a dozen. But what’s that have to do with anything? If you try to limit lunatics’ access to assault weapons — the kind expressly designed to spray 30 rounds in a few seconds — then you have to limit the access of law-abiding citizens as well.
And the downside of that would be what, exactly? People talk about the sporting use of these damned things, but we all know the real reason they want AK-47s and AR-15s and Glocks with high-capacity magazines is to heroically fend off brigades of advancing UN soldiers, come to impose the New World Order. That’s the dream: crouching behind a Chevy Tahoe and gunning down the Godless, in a scene right out of Red Dawn. Or killing not one home invader, but a whole freaking platoon of them. To preserve that dream, we are just going to have to put up with quite a few of these mass shootings every year.
Sarcasm aside, I think that’s bullshit. This isn’t really about gun control. It’s about lunatic control. The next time a black-clad nutcase wanders into a movie theater or a shopping mall, I’d much prefer he be armed with a bolt-action Remington. That’s a good sporting gun. If we really want to be sporting, maybe we should give the intended victims a sporting chance.