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.
This is a very extensive topic. If you think back to the time the constitution and bill of rights were written particularly the second amendments they only had simple guns that fired one shot at a time and then reloaded. Do you think they could've imagined a person able to carry multiple guns that could kill dozens and dozens of people in the matter of a minute? I don't want us to completely rebel against the constitution but take in a little more mind to their situation and ours and remember it is a living document.
ReplyDeleteAlso I think while regulations and permissions to purchase different grades of guns should be in place it would be extremely hard to regulate and to psychologically evaluate all the crazies and not to mention normal people. To what extent are we going to impede citizen’s rights to guns for the sake of crazy people?
I'd like to ask a question. How do you test a person's sanity? For example....my parents recently took a class so that they could get permits to carry concealed weapons (no worries, they aren't usually packing). They told me about a young man in that class who was asking really strange questions and just kind of felt like a crazy person. And yet, at the end of the class, he was given a permit because by objective standards nothing was wrong with him. If this man was to somehow become a mass shooter like in the Aurora disaster, how would you have suggested stopping him? For that matter, what if a seemingly normal person suddenly broke down and went on a rampage. Remember-in our country, we are innocent until proven guilty, so we can't have our rights limited BEFORE we've done something wrong. Maybe there do need to be a few more regulations, but have you ever tried to buy a gun? The requirements are already fairly strict. I believe human flaw is the reason behind these shootings, and that it isn't necessarily something the government needs to control more than they already do. HOWEVER- I don't think assault rifles should be available to the public at all. That's just a moral thing for me personally-I don't see a reason that a normal person would need one, since they're made for causing mass destruction and I don't think anyone should have that kind of power to hurt so many others.
ReplyDeleteMy response is apparently too long, so I'll post in multiple comments:
ReplyDeleteFrankie, I concede with you that assault rifles should not be widely distributed among civilians, and that we are, as Americans entirely innocent until proven guilty. In answering your response, however, I will first comment on the fact that you stated strict gun regulations already exist.
To the statement that things are strict now, I say that right now, states have the larger say in what constitutes adequate gun regulation than any federal mandate. If anyone thinks gun regulation is uniformly strict, look at the varying laws coming from two different States in our country, as examples: Arkansas--very lenient--and California--pretty strict-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Arkansas and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California. In Arkansas, there are relatively few regulations regarding purchasing, carrying, and using firearms. In California, however, there are regulations on clip size, every gun in the state is registered by the state, and there is a ten-day waiting period to buy any firearm. To tell the truth, Utah is not a very stringent state in the area of gun regulation, and it is one of the easiest states in which to get a concealed weapons permit. People from elsewhere come to Utah to get a concealed weapons permit, because it is much easier to get one here than in most neighboring states, you don't even need to be able to shoot a handgun to get a concealed weapons permit! You go to the class, pay the fee, and the permit comes in the mail. In my opinion, having the ability to carry a loaded firearm in the state everywhere except federal buildings, churches, and secure areas, is dangerous anyway, but even more so given the fact that almost anyone over the age of 21 could potentially get a permit to carry a deadly weapon in public, without even demonstrating proficiency or ability shooting said weapon, and that the same permit is recognized in over 30 other states.
There is a point in that we are innocent until proven guilty, but who said anything about marking potential firearm buyers as guilty? The buyer won't be put in jail, just denied access to a dangerous weapon because of the potential community threat. States do give background checks, and those laws are considered constitutional, and upheld. We give background checks when a person applies to a job, having one to purchase a gun isn’t a huge deal. It’s just a safety net. The fact that the firearm and the dealer are well regulated could actually keep the customer or dealer legally protected, as the firearm was recorded, safely distributed, and put into the hands of a then responsible adult. What the adult does afterwards, is his choice, but at least he would have had a cool--off period, a clean background check, and a small enough clip to negate the ability of the individual to cause immensely catastrophic violence or to instigate a mass—killing.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, the psychoanalysis would be pretty unlikely, though it could protect people, it could also be seen as an infringement on civil rights and very difficult to give out. However, I think something as serious as the distribution of firearms should be well regulated, and uniform state laws concerning firearms should emerge. Gun laws vary immensely, but do they really need to? Sure, the urban environment needs more regulations than low--populated areas, but that could be part of a national code of gun laws. Right now, the states have a large say in the issue, and the fact is, it is easy to be certified to carry and to purchase in some states, and more difficult in others. It should be more difficult in all states. Guns are, by nature, dangerous, and with more and more of American society existing in populated area, it makes sense to regulate guns to keep communities safer, to try to lower or regulate crime, and to keep more tragedies from happening.
Could anything have been done to stop that tragedy when Holmes burst into that Aurora theatre brandishing his assault rifle, and began gunning down innocent people? I think that if the dealers had recorded his purchases, and regulated their sales with a wait period, things could have been different. Just a call from the dealers to the police, notifying them of enormous purchases of questionable military grade weapons recently by one guy, the acquiring of a search warrant and having a legal and warranted investigation, could have been enough to stop him. He had planted explosives prior to heading out, highly illegal in any state. But, this is not a typical case. The police under normal circumstances should have no business knowing about or even analyzing a person's weapons purchases. However, if an individual is buying explosives and body armor, as well as assault rifles, (as Homes was), law enforcement should at least know about it. And the only way they'd know is with careful regulation of weapons and weapon permits.
People have a right to have weapons, but that doesn't mean they have a right to unregulated guns. When the community's natural rights are inherently at risk by the existence of such firearms, there needs to be more laws made and restrictions established, else the rights and protection of all are at risk for the rights of a few. America is about protecting individual rights, but doing so becomes very difficult when the rights of some can cause the rights of others to be damaged. The difficult question for America and her laws is "What is right?" and "What will protect the people?" The right option, I believe lies between them, the hard part is finding the medium.
I feel a little silly commenting on this more than a month after the actual post, but it is an issue worth commenting on. The fact of the matter is that, while innocent until proven guilty is a good concept, it just doesn't really apply here. As David said, we would not be declaring gun buyers a guilty party before they do anything, we would simply be making sure that they are not, at least at the moment of purchase, likely to attack another human being with their new weaponry. We may not have much control after the purchase, but at the time of the purchase itself, the least we can do is confirm that they are not intending to go out and be a murderer or serial killer. Once they have the gun, yes, attitudes can change, but the company would have done all they could do, and that is all anyone can expect.Now, on the topic of assault rifles, I agree that it is ridiculous to make those commercially available. Why on earth would you need an assault rifle or fully automatic machine gun for recreational use? It makes no sense to sell those to the general public. The body armor, on the other hand, I can understand. Despite the bright orange vests, people still get shot when they go hunting. Bulletproof body armor could be actually useful to the average citizen. I simply fail to see how adding more rigorous background checks and additional tests would restrict any constitutional rights. No one is, automatically, removing your "right" to buy a firearm, and, after all, your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins. It is perfectly all right to remove someone's right to purchase and carry a gun when it hinders one of someone else's higher rights, namely the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
ReplyDelete-Liam Brookhart
Haha, they're suing the ammo dealers? Under the grounds that they are responsible? Kind of ridiculous in my opinion. Make sure the dude gets what he deserves. Make him pay for what he did, not the ammo company. Their anger is mislead...
ReplyDeleteIs it ridiculous Cam? Is it really? If someone you were close to got shot and killed by someone with a gun, you would want justice to all parties involved. James Holmes is going to rot in jail for a very long time, who else is responsible? Oh yes, the company that sold him said gun, a militarized assault rife, and all he had to do to get that gun was click a button, no background check, no waiting period, just an accessible instant mail-order weapon. The companies were and are partially responsible. It's like letting someone get in and drive an expensive sports car without checking if they have a driver's liscence, let alone a good track record, watching the car get totalled, then telling the owner of the sports car it was the kid's fault.
ReplyDelete