Dave's Fiction Warehouse

In which I bloviate about books, TV, movies, politics and other stuff -- all without the aid of ChatGPT!

Connect

What sort of guns should lunatics own?

by

james holmes colorado gunman

Happy with his right to bear arms of mass destruction.

Another young lunatic grabs up some semiautomatic weapons and starts killing people at random. Once again, the discussion afterward is not about what can be done, but what can’t be done. Specifically, we can’t do anything to keep young lunatics from acquiring as many military-grade firearms as they want. The New York Times just updates its ongoing list of Worst Mass Shootings, and the Washington Post runs its standard analysis about how this kind of thing will have zero bearing on gun policy in America.

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.

More along these lines:

Comments

  1. Maxine says

    I don’t agree that guns are fine. If they were banned there would be fewer shooting incidents overall (eg all those domestic occurrences). It would not eliminate it but it sure would reduce it. So much of American “culture” is in love with guns, it is quite horrific. (Let alone the “constitutional rights” lot…ha!)

    • Dave Knadler says

      Actually, I edited the post to remove that line. I still think sporting arms are fine in the hands of sportsmen, but that’s not the way it read.

      In sum, my position is that large-caliber semiautomatic weapons have no legitimate civilian use and should not be readily available to any head case who happens to be having a bad day. Near all mass shootings involve the use of such weapons. I sure wouldn’t object to banning them.

      But of course, that’s not going to happen.

  2. Erin says

    The really weird thing is my oldest daughter called me last night around the time this took place. She was inviting me to go see Magic Mike on Sunday with her.
    Now I am kind of thinking I don’t really need to see Magic Mike. In a movie theater that is.
    Do you think the media intentionally chose a photo of that kid looking all sweet and normal?
    This is just so disturbing and sad on so many levels.

  3. Paula says

    The NRA goes ballistic at the thought of banning private ownership of assault rifles, even cop killer bullets, even though no decent citizen needs such weapons. The statistics of gun deaths in the US compared to other countries is staggering. Innocent people are more in danger so a bunch of truly nutty gun lovers can feel all macho about what they own.

    The discussion board on the Arkansas Democrat Gazette’s site today was very telling. To a man, everyone of the redneck brigade thought if HE had been there carrying his concealed carry permitted gun, he would have put the situation to rights in a hurry. Oh right, every one of these guys is like a trained sharpshooter. More guns in the area when chaos breaks out will mean more deaths.

    Keep in mind that when Rep. Giffords was shot, it wasn’t armed people that brought the shooter under control. It was an old lady and an out of shape man, both unarmed, but truly brave and able to take advantage of a split second opportunity to stop him. Brave is not shooting off your mouth and waving the biggest gun.

    I’m not in favor of total gun control, but the fire power needs to be greatly reduced. The number of guns is obscene. A shot gun for hunting or home defense is plenty for most people. I’m proud to say my husband and I have never owned guns. Even my father, a career policeman who believed guns should not be completely outlawed thought most people were in more danger with one than without.

    • Dave Knadler says

      Yes, the standard NRA response is that the tragedy could have been prevented if only everyone present had been fully strapped. Nothing restores order like a bunch of untrained pistoleros blasting away in a crowded theater.

  4. Molly says

    If psychiatric evaluations ever became necessary for a civilian purchase of an assault rifle, what reasoning in such an evaluation would give the green light????

    • Dave Knadler says

      Good question. Just the fact that someone wants an assault rifle and a couple of Glocks should set off some kind of alarm. Right away you know you’re not dealing with Mahatma Gandhi.

      If it’s just a hobby, then maybe it’s time to get a new hobby.

  6. Deb says

    As the old saying goes, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”…with guns.