I didn’t intend on writing about the events in Aurora, Colorado – I also wasn’t sure I could add anything to the discussion. Then I found that S.E. Cupp pretty much wrote was I was thinking:
Evil is difficult to deconstruct. It’s unpredictable and manifests in unimaginable ways, often more horrifying than anything fiction could invent. And evil acts are nearly impossible to prevent: Holmes is hardly the first psychopath to wreak havoc on our shared sense of security. He won’t be the last, either….
…
Our political institutions try to make sense of senseless evil by, again, looking to hand down broad and indiscriminate punishments, and promising more oversight, better regulations and increased transparency.
…
But the debate over gun control that inevitably stirs after a tragedy like Aurora is just as ineffective at dealing with unmitigated evil.
That’s because evil will find a way.
6 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Alain
25 July 2012 at 21:08 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I tend to agree, but I would like to raise a couple of points. First is that had the cinema not been a gun free area and a few of the customers or workers had had a gun, this could have been ended with fewer deaths and wounded. They could have taken out the nutter before he inflicted more death and injury. Second, I find it strange how he was able to acquire such an arsenal (not in the least cheap) without knowledge or financial assistance from his parents. I am not saying they knew what he was going to do with all the weapons and gear, but this should have raised questions for them.
Taliesyn
26 July 2012 at 0:25 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
The problem with your assertion that has someone else in the cinema been armed is that the nutter was wearing full body armor, including a ballistic helmet. The citizen gunman would have had to have been a crack shot (a la the old westerns) to have hit him in an unprotected area.
Bill
26 July 2012 at 6:52 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Nope, these vests just prevent penetration. Each bullet arrives like the kick of mule. He would have been incapacitated. It is why the preferred defense weapon should be .40 or .45 caliber.
Alain
26 July 2012 at 10:56 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
No, you are mistaken, because the force of even one bullet would have knocked him down even if it did not penetrate his body armour giving others time to overpower him.
brad
26 July 2012 at 16:13 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
not to mention if there were several people firing at him. but taken one step further, would someone even attempt such a thing if they knew there were a credible chance of being shot in the process. some will take the chance, no doubt, as nothing is 100% (see Death Sentence for people who will still commit murder) but it may deter a great many.
Taliesyn
26 July 2012 at 20:54 (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Unfortunately the evil and the insane don’t understand deterrence. Their calculation of risk isn’t the same as normal folks.