First, let me say that I don’t own a gun, and I’m not suggesting that gun ownership be unregulated.
Little kids shouldn’t be allowed to drive cars. People like me shouldn’t be allowed to buy rat poison. And even good folks shouldn’t be allowed to buy guns without there being restrictions.
I make no excuses for James Holmes and what he did, but then, I’ve never had the misfortune of experiencing the electrochemical reactions that went on between his synapses and controlled his actions during the Aurora massacre and the days leading up to it.
I struggle to understand the man and his actions, but having him characterized as a “jerk” does little to deepen my insight.
Stricter gun control might have altered the nature of the attack, but there’s no reason to think it would have prevented it.
Several years ago, George Weller drove his Buick through the Santa Monica Farmers’ Market, killing 10 and injuring 35. He had no gun, just a Buick.
And what could be more wholesomely American than a Buick? (Other than mom and apple pie, of course — oh, and let’s not forget the Constitution, along with its Second Amendment.)
Closer to home, I’m sure we all remember when a kid driving a truck out front of Hemet High ran a light and sent 9 people to the hospital [May 30].
Anyone wanting to kill a dozen or so people does not have to rely on a gun.
How about 3,000 people? How about the events of Sept. 11, 2001?
Again, no guns.
Yes, increased gun control seems like an easy answer to the problem of violence in our society. But it’s akin to the proverbial man who searches for his lost key under a lamppost simply because that’s where the light is best.
Violence is a problem we must confront, but suggesting stricter gun control as the solution serves only as a distraction.
A dangerous distraction.