======= ======= ====== ====== ====== ===== ==== ====== ====== ===== ==== ======= ======= ====== ====== ====== ===== ==== ====== ====== ===== ====
The shooting in Aurora, Colorado was a national tragedy. It was a thoughtless act of despicable violence. No one is going to debate that. But in the wake of this tragedy what people are going to debate are gun control laws. It’s annoying, it’s inevitable, and it’s more or less unfair to try to base serious national and state policies on bizarre isolated incidents. The Aurora shooter was completely clean before the incident. He could have legally and easily purchased a gun just about anywhere no matter how strict the laws were. But it’s understandable that situations like this get the conversation moving again.
Are there certain gun control measures I don’t understand as being practical? Sure. For example I don’t actually understand why anyone would ever need to own an assault weapon like the one used in the Aurora shooting. It seems to me that if there were an intruder in your home and you wanted to send said intruder on an express train to hell before he stole your Blu-Ray player then a handgun or shotgun would do just fine. Other people disagree and believe it’s their God-given right to pump an AR-15 clip into a burglar. Never mind that while you’re firing your assault weapon into your dimly lit living room you’re probably going to end up hitting your Blu-Ray player anyway. Plus in the morning you’ll be patching more drywall than a fraternity house manager.
Any law abiding citizen should be allowed to own a gun if they so choose, but it’s also fair to debate the types of guns people should be allowed to own. As far as concealed carry laws go there at minimum needs to be a “shall-issue” requirement. Unrestricted concealed carry is nuts. Some rights you have to earn. I think that’s a pretty reasonable view of the Second Amendment.
Then there’s Ted Nugent, who, if he could, would be in perpetual bidding wars with Al-Qaeda operatives for mothballed heavy Soviet weaponry. Actually, maybe the U.S. should let Nugent into that market. He might actually keep a few weapons out of terrorist hands. But as awesome as it would be to watch Ted Nugent’s fiery jihad on deer, he’s still a fucking crazy person. There might not be a worse self appointed spokesperson for the Second Amendment than Nugent. His most recent statements, which related to the Aurora shooting, were as quality crazy as ever.
Yes, Ted Nugent, that dark, chaotic, smoke filled theatre needed MORE bullets flying through it. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that A) there probably were a couple gun owners in that theater and B) even if they had brought their weapons none of them were capable enough marksmen to squeeze off controlled shots in the horrific madness that was that theater. In fact the last thing I would want if someone walked into a theatre or a mall or whatever and started firing on a crowd is Ted Nugent standing on the other side of that crowd, firing back. But yeah, in a perfect world it would have been nice to have an off duty Navy SEAL hanging out with his side arm when the shooting started.
Considering the mediocrity of most gun owners I doubt that anyone having a gun anywhere would be that much of an effective deterrent. You only have to look back to the Gabby Giffords shooting in Arizona where an armed civilian nearly shot the wrong guy. By the time Joe Zamudio reached the scene of the Arizona shooting he pointed his gun at the man who had subdued Jared Loughner and taken his gun. Zamudio initially mistook that man for the shooter. Thankfully Zamudio was smart enough to tell the man to drop the gun instead of firing first.
Don’t celebrate Ted Nugent for being pro-Second Amendment, regret it. Having crazies on your side never helps your case. The only saving grace is that Nugent is probably so crazy that only other crazies take him seriously. Time to let the grown ups talk, Ted.