http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/17/justice/colorado-theater-shooting-lawsuit/index.html?hpt=us_c2
The aurora movie theatre shooting two years ago is something both terrible and sad. James Holmes, a crazy, highly unstable guy-- armed to the teeth with over 4,000 rounds of ammo, bullet proof armor, several weapons, and explosives--went into a theatre, while the movie was playing, and brutally shot into the audience. 12 were killed, and dozens more wounded. He was apprehended by the police, and they had to remove explosive charges from all over his apartment in the days following. When I heard what had happened, it really struck home for me. I lived in Aurora, Colorado for twelve years, and I lived ten minutes from that theatre. It is a really disturbing thing that someone would go and do that, but even more disturbing to me, is that Holmes was able to shoot and injure or kill almost 60 people, in a crowded theatre, and the fact he had access to military grade weapons, armor, and explosives that helped him do it, and would've also been used to help him avoid arrest, and kill law enforcement officers along the way, had he not been taken into custody as soon as he was. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed a lawsuit recently on behalf of Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, whose daughter Jessica Ghawi was shot and killed in the attack. They are suing Lucky Gunner, the Sportman's Guide, BulletProofBodyArmorHQ.com and BTP Arms for negligently supplying Holmes.
The constitution has been argued about and debated over since its existence, and with the issue of gun rights and in the differing interpretations of the second amendment, the same controversy continues. The family suing the online guns and ammo retailers said in a statement, " A crazed, homicidal killer should not be able to amass a military arsenal, without showing his face or answering a single question, with the simple click of a mouse, . . . If businesses choose to sell military-grade equipment online, they must screen purchasers to prevent arming people like James Holmes." I do concede that hunters and gun enthusiasts should be able to have guns if they really do want them, if the purchase of these weapons are regulated. But, I do not believe the ability to have a gun should mean the ability to get one is an easy and convenient process, or that anyone except the military, maybe a very few extremely well monitored enthusiasts, and maybe law enforcement should even have access to military grade weapons, and certainly not with simple and convenient access. It has been said by critics of gun regulation that "guns don't cause shootings, individuals do." To this I agree, except for the fact that if the individual never had a gun in the first place, he never could have shot anyone. Putting a firearm in a person's hands gives them access to a weapon, and with the weapon, a way to kill people, in the eyes of the mentally unsound or distraught. I believe that civilians do have a right to purchase and use guns, but only within reasonable regulation. There is no easy solution, but I think that the businesses responsible for selling firearms should background check their customers at the very least, maybe even give psychological analysis, and there should be a mandatory waiting period for purchasing a firearm, to allow cool-off time for upset individuals, and to make the process more difficult, to make spontaneous acts of violence less probable. The fact is, Holmes was able to purchase weapons and ammo quite easily, if he hadn't been able get them as quickly, perhaps that night in Aurora would not have ended in such tragedy.
I do not think the general community would mind waiting a little longer for their firearms, especially considering if they have nothing to hide they would have nothing to fear, and would have access to their precious guns-- as long as they passed the background checks and mental stability tests-- and in the fact that communities would be safer. The fact is, regulating how firearms are bought and distributed shouldn't even be the issue, it should already be inherent, the fact is-- it isn't, the issue is why are weapons are so accessible?, it poses a real danger to communities. It shouldn't be, in my opinion, a fast and simple process to buy a gun. Sure, there are gun enthusiasts, who may mean no harm, and just want to collect guns, and they amass arsenals of ammo and weapons, all fine and good until their gun collection is stolen from. Or there are people who just really want a firearm to protect themselves. There are hunters who certainly need guns to hunt too. It may be an inconvenience, but it is much safer to have wait times and background checks, and everyone will still be able to have guns. I don't think we need to have military weapons though. They are, by design, created to kill a lot of people very quickly.Who really needs an assault rifle in a domestic setting?, who really needs military grade body armor? who buys sophisticated explosives merely for enjoyment? The people that do are either planning criminal activities, or trying to spark an insurrection, or very unstable, and, all it takes is one psychopath with a firearm, and there's a tragedy. I think the benefits of not allowing such weapons for civilians far outweigh the potentially catastrophic and harrowing risks. People advocate having high--powered weapons with large magazines as a defense against the government, however, a few assault rifles and private military grade arsenals aren't going to do much good if the government really wanted to attack its citizens--which is a ridiculous notion to begin with, by the way. Voting and participating in government, and being informed is the true defense against injustice; being complacent as a society is what causes government to not represent our interests.
