A Response to the Attack in Denver
Posted on July 20, 2012 by Natalie in Natalie's Blog
A Firearm Owner’s Response to the Attack in Denver
by Natalie Foster
I got word of the attack after Barb Baird of Women’s Outdoor News notified me and a few others in a message online. The death toll at the time was 12. Like everyone else, I was horrified. First I felt crushing heartbreak, then overwhelming anger. And then, like most gun owners and concealed carry permit holders, the scenario played out in my mind. I wished, for a moment, that I – or dear God, someone – had been there with a concealed firearm and had been in a position to take the gunman down.
I flashed back to Gabrielle Giffords and the day she and many of her constituents were shot at an outdoor meeting in Tuscon. Gun owner or not, we all felt gutted that day, too. I remembered feeling the same anger I felt this morning. First at Jared Loughner, who has since been diagnosed as mentally ill. Angry at his parents. Angry at the mental health system. But equally as angry that the tragedy immediately became manipulated by the political class. It was infuriating, insulting and disrespectful. That the media and politicians could not simply take a moment to mourn with us as a nation was appalling. “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” was the mentality of the moment. Their instant reaction was to blame opposing politicians and their rhetoric. They used the tragedy as ammunition for their own positions. They manipulated it for their own gain. It was a knee jerk reaction and it was wrong. I am still angry at Jared Loughner and the other factors that contributed to his attack. But I am inspired by the beautiful and courageous Gabby Giffords as well as the people who took control of the situation and stopped Loughner from killing even more innocent people.
As a representative of the firearms community, if self-appointed, what I want to say to the general public is this:
We in the gun community are disgusted by James Holmes’ actions. What he did was evil. I can assure you that the majority of us wish we could have been there to stop this mass murder. If we had been able to do so, we would have reacted the way the armed 71-year-old man in the Internet cafe did just last week. If we could have, we would have shot first.
If you feel it is callous that the gun community disagrees with stronger restrictions on guns at a time like this, I respectfully ask that you listen, when the time is right, to our position with an open mind. We are good people who want to protect ourselves and our loved ones from situations precisely like the one we saw in Denver. I cannot state emphatically enough that we do not want more people killed. We want more lives saved.
I would also ask you, respectfully, not to blame the guns or the bullets or the movie. There are very specific and logical reasons behind this position, but I write this piece not to argue that point. Not yet. There will be time for that.Right now I don’t know what the solution is. Despite what our talking heads want you to believe, they don’t know either. I can tell you that disarming the general, law abiding public is a knee jerk reaction that will only have unintended negative consequences.
Banning guns does not ban evil. And any sort of gun ban ensures not a lack of violence, but an increase. There is a time for that discussion, but it is not now. It is not this moment. Right now we all need to grieve. And we need to support those whose lives were forever changed by last night’s events in Colorado.
I am confident that I speak for the entire firearms community when I say that our hearts are broken and our prayers are with the victims and those who hold them dear.
As always you have represented the gun community in an intelligent and thoughtful way. Thank you for that wonderful piece!
Well said.
This is beautiful and direct in just the right way. Thank you for writing it. It comforts me on this sad day to know that there are others who are courageous enough to talk about this tragedy with honest, clear-headed empathy.
I was thinking about blogging on this issue myself, but I’m still trying to evade the Armchair Commando chatter. Thanks for such a great summation, I shared it on Facebook so my friends can see it in case they don’t read your blog.
Well said Natalie! This saddens and disgusts me–sad at the senseless deaths brought about by this man, and disgust and anger at the way some will twist and use this for political gain. Well said, and thank you for your eloquence expressing the thoughts of your fellow gun owners–especially us girl gun owners.
With all due respect (and I do mean that) — Colorado is already one of the least restricted places in the United States, or the modern world for that matter, when it comes to gun control.
What Colorado laws would you say are restrictive enough that they prevented people from carrying the firearms that you believe would have led to a more positive outcome here?
I will accept as given that if a sufficiently trained person with a firearm happened to be within 50 or 100 feet of this person; and that armed citizen was calm enough and skilled enough to take the right action, it is possible that this shooter could have been taken down sooner and some lives saved.
That’s a lot of “if’s”. I’m a firefighter. I know how even highly trained people can break down in a high stress situation, even when they’ve been trained for it. At one time I did a fair bit of organized target shooting, so I also know how difficult it is to hit even a perfectly still target at greater than 50′ with a handgun when calm and taking your time.
I would suggest two things:
1. In all probability if you had other people in the crowd with firearms, you would NOT have had a calm, careful, responsible approach. You would have had the chaos of one or more additional firearms being discharged in a crowded location with almost no safe back drop in which to fire. At the very least you would have a had an increasingly panicked mob headed for the doors. More likely, you’d have had a worse result.
I am NOT suggesting that the right to carry a firearm be taken away from those qualified to safely handle them.
I am suggesting that this incident does NOT represent a good case where more armed citizens would have had a positive result.
Amen to that. It’s horrible, but disarming the people will only do more harm.
I love your point of now being the time to grieve the loss of life, not to argue our views on gun rights. As a gun owner, and having my CCW permit, it’s difficult not not respond to comments I read, but I thank Natalie for reminding me there is a time and place for that. Very well stated. Thank you!
Perfect reply Natalie.
Thank you.
Great piece. I also read the linked story about the gun owner who shot the robbers. I’d like to point out that in his interview, the robber stated that he didn’t expect anyone to be armed. THIS is the problem with not allowing the responsible, CCW holders to carry their firearms. It leaves us all open to the danger of criminals who view the “prohibited firearms” stickers as a form of protection for their deeds.
Unfortunately from what is being reported, it would have been really tough to take him down due to how well protected he was with his vest, etc. I would like to think someone could!
Very well stated, Natalie!…All of us need to gather round these people and support them in this time of unimaginable grief they are now feeling. We must pray for these victims and for all those involved in this horrific tragedy!
very done, natalie!! i hope those that blame guns will at least THINK about the other view..the one held by most of us in the gun community who own guns not to cause trouble, but to keep peace.
I’m working on getting my TX CHL and in light of the events on Colorado I have now set a deadline for myself. You’re right. You do represent the entire firearms community with your words & beliefs. I’d like to think that if I’d been there & been armed, perhaps I could’ve saved a life by my actions. Prayers are going out for everyone affected by this tragedy.
“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
—Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
Maybe YOUR heart’s in the right place, but the NRA has taken these so-called “rights” FAR beyond reasonable limits. Most of the NRA campaigns are to allow assault weapons, which were used in this attack. Nobody had need for an assault weapon. These folks simply feel weak and less of a man unless they have a gun, or else they like killing people. Both motivations are pathetic.
thank you for saying what a lot of us do feel. now is not the time for knee-jerk reactions, now is the time to grieve for the lives lost and for those that have forever changed by simply going to a movie theater.
Umm, Natalie…he IS part of this gun community you mention. He owned a gun. Just like you. Guns should be illegal. Period. The only thing that could have made last night worse is if ten other people who ALSO own guns as part of your community also opened fire in the theater. What are you thinking?
You hit the nail right on the head. We don’t carry to do harm to anyone. We carry to protect our families and other innocent people.
Thank you!
Natalie, Very well spoken (written). It infuriates me how in a time of tragedy, the politicians and the anti gun lobby will use this heartbreaking incident to further their political agenda. I truly wish people would stop looking for someone or something to blame and take a moment to show some compassion to the victims of this tragedy. Let us all take a moment and say a little prayer for those who were affected by the actions of one person.
Thank you,
Scott from Massachusetts
This is an interesting perspective. However, I believe you are making a giant leap to assume that you could draw your gun and shoot the murderer before he killed 12 people. The eye witnesses state that he arrived into a dark theater, and most of the audience did not see him. Then he detonated some sort of gas into the air and began firing a fully automatic weapon that could murder 12 people within seconds, and wound 50 people within 10 seconds. Perhaps you could pull out your weapon – but could you shoot him with people chaotically climbing over you and various rows to get out of harm’s way?
The 2nd amendment is vague in its wording “bear arms”. Most Americans feel “arms” includes machines that fire pellets of steel. But chemical weapons, nuclear weapons and many other military weapons are not included. So I ask the gun owners, why does the term “bear arms” refer just to the term “guns” – and include all types of guns (like the kind that can kill 50 people in seconds, but could not be used to shoot a deer, or carried around to defend yourself at coffee shops)? Why should chemical weapons be regulated? Many (if not most) could be replicated in a home lab, although it wouldn’t be very stable.
Thank you,
Jana from Seattle
F the NRA and gun supporters! Guns only destroy!
if you shot him protecting someone elses life your life would be ruined because some laws state if your life is not in danger you can’t shoot.At least make sure they are white or your in big trouble
Well written. I could not agree more with your stance on this situation.
Thanks,
Booda
A very thoughtful and well written post. Thank you Natalie.
I agree 100% with Natalie. This is a National tragedy but I also look at other cities…Chicago, for example, has this many people killed on a weekly basis with no public outrage. As a retired Marine..I believe stongly in gun control…Relax..aim…breathe and squeeze. I hope and pray I will never have to draw a weapon in defense of myself or a loved one but I will with no hesitation because I know when seconds count…law enforcement is only minutes away.
It isn’t about banning guns, it is about regulating them. Nationalize and apply strict licensing similarly what we have for automobiles, training, regular inspections, require insurance etc. If you can’t pass the test(mentally or proficiency) then you can’t own a gun.
Ban armor piercing bullets for all those not in the military or border patrol/law enforcement, they are at the greatest risk.
I know this may go against many who believe that the second amendment sacrosanct, but God gave us two hands, why do we need more than two guns?
As to a typical gun owner being able to stop what happened in CO, I highly doubt it, tear gas was used first, the gunman had a gas mask and a bullet proof vest.
Regulation is a good thing. It has given us clean water to drink, protected us from many toxins in our foods, made our roads safer. On the other hand deregulation has brought our country to the brink of collapse with the meltdowns of the financial industry and their derivatives and sub prime mortgages.
My sympathies with the families of those involved in this tragedy. And like you hope that the public does not react against gun owners. Whenever something like this happens by someone who has legally acquired guns, it is a major step backwards for the rest of the gun owning population. However I hope that the government and special interest groups understand that this is not a gun issue, it is a mental health issue. And had he not been able to acquire a gun, he still could have made a bomb, set a fire, etc to accomplish his goals. If someone had been carrying in the theater and killed the attacker after one shot, nobody would have ever imagined how far the tragedy would have gone otherwise and the citizen may have been in some serious trouble. So ironically, when concealed carry works at it’s “best” the results are somewhat difficult to assess, which I believe adds to the problem.
If a ban on guns would mean an increase on violence, How come we have the highest gun rate in the world, while places with a total ban on guns has a much lower rate of gun related violence. That argument holds no water what so ever…
Maegdlyn, apparently you didn’t read the implicit request to have this argument at a later time. Since you ask, however, consider Mexico. They have very strict gun laws which virtually forbid ownership unless you are in law enforcement, the military, or a cartel.
and the “place with a total ban on guns” to which you refer that “has a much lower rate of gun related violence” would be where?
Studies have showed time and again that gun bans do NOT lower violent crime. Look at how many people are stabbed to death in the UK. Giving up your right to defend yourself, does not make you safer.
Here in America look at the States and cities that have the most gun control and look at their gun crime then talk about their rate of violence.
Yes, we should all take a moment to appreciate how this one man and his GUN has impacted so many lives. If it wasn’t for this man’s GUN this all could have been avoided. This man’s GUN has forever changed the lives of nearly 60 people and their families. All those bullets did not fly out of his mouth, or eyes, or fingers…they flew out of his GUN and if he didn’t have a GUN no one would have been hurt. Guns kill people. People with guns kill people. The answer is most certainly not more guns.
I will be interested to see what eventually is discovered regarding the shooter’s motivation. Obviously, he is deranged. But I am curious as to what kind of delusions motivated such behavior in such an, otherwise, apparently high-functioning individual. Sadly, the deranged will always be with us–and such tragic events will continue to happen from time to time.
Natalie,
What a fantastic and heartfelt post. You seem to feel just as I did when I heard. I grew up just an hour east of Aurora, Colorado and have spent a lot of time in that city. To hear that this man (I refuse to say his name) apparently went through legal means to obtain his weapons and gear does not mean he would not have gotten it illegally if he had no other way. My heart breaks for the people who had to deal with this, who were injured, and most of all for the families that had their loved ones so immediately taken from their lives. He is pure walking evil, and no amount of political posturing or addition laws and gun control will keep someone like him from perpetrating his devastation on a given population. Why can’t people see that? The best thing people like you and I can do is get the word out about all the responsible gun owners out there, the countless numbers of people who own and train with their firearms everyday and mean only good to their fellow man. Thank you for all you do!
Natalie, thank you for being so well spoken on this matter. Our thoughts and prayers at the Gunway office are with the victims and family members affected by such a horrific event. I can only imagine the pain these folks are struggling with.
A very well written response to the situation.
I understand the premise behind the 2nd amendment and agree with the citizenry’s right to bear arms but really people…let’s get real…do you really need an AK to protect your life or liberty…do you really need the type of ammunition and weaponry this guy was able to purchase legally to protect your homes, your family, your property or your ability to hunt? Not asking for a total ban just some common sense and the ability to know the difference.
I whole-heartedly agree with this article and want to express my sincerest condolences to the victim’s families and to the survivors of this attack.
I hate to say this but, we are trying to find someone to blame for this travesty and I don’t think we should blame those poor people for not having concealed carry..This is a disturbing trend that I am seeing within the gun community. Not every one wants a gun, is comfortable with guns, etc. BUT, that being said, I think that those of us in the gun community should get our concealed carrys and start carrying our guns so we can protect those who choose not to carry. I think I am going to get mine soon and my husband, who already has his, is going to get a smaller gun better suited for concealed carry. I think business should allow, and advertise, that they are “concealed carry” friendly establishments. This might be a good deterrent. Remember, Arizona is a full on, out in the open, carry state yet, the Giffords attack still happened….
I, too, am a gun owner – trained in the use of my Walther ppk for self defense. I take only one issue with your essay, and that is that not all gun owners carry only for self defense and to protect their families — that’s been proven too many times. I believe those who wish to own guns should have to prove they’ve been trained in their use and should have to pass background checks, and even pass psychological testing. We do that to drive a car, for pity’s sake. What’s the big deal about proving you’re responsible enough to own a weapon?
I agree, I have my CWP, and have taken the test, and would agree to any other testing. Our schools teach the kids about drugs, sex Ed, etc. why not gun safety.
Emily, We have a constitutional right to carry guns for protection. We do not have a guaranteed right to drive a car! The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say, “Only people that the government chooses” should be allowed do to have firearms.”
If you are a criminal or have been a criminal the government prevents you from having a firearm. So yes the government can take away your right.
You know if the guy would have taken a car and drove on to a soccor field full of people to kill. Would our government try to ban Cars. Its not what they use to kill it they kill.
I’m sorry Mrs. Fergtuson but the National Rifle Association cannot tolerate this position in order to not look childish to the media.
With regards,
Wayne LaPierre
Why does gun control instantly translate into a society where all guns are banned? Can’t we just ban assault rifles with 100-bullet-magazine clips, designed for one purpose? Carry a concealed weapon? Fine. I’m comfortable with that if it requires a strict background check and isn’t an assault rifle.
Thank you, Mike. I think that should be an area in which the gun-owners could agree without losing any personal rights or freedom. Also, I wonder, if there were people with concealed weapons in that smoke-filled theatre shooting at the well-armored Holmes, could that have not caused more mayhem and deaths?
We should never compromise ANY of our gun rights. The 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to own firearms. It doesn’t have a clause that dictated WHICH firearms we are allowed to own. The minute that you give a government control over your rights is when you will begin to lose them all. We ALREADY have laws in place regarding fully automatic weapons. Did that stop this guy? More laws do NOT help!
Sweet Jesus…it is reading such rubbish as the above which convinces me further (as if it were needed) that these pointless MASSACRES will go on and on indefinitely, so long as you people cling on to your outdated (and quite frankly dangerous) obsessions with your right to bear arms.
FFS, get with the programme….I despair of your country – at least, the majority of it.
What is an assault rifle? Are 99-bullet-magazine clips (sic) OK? What if the “assault rifle” with “100-bullet-magazine clips” is designed for more than one purpose? Say for target shooting AND hunting. Is that OK then?
Please tell me what you are hunting that it would take 100 shots to take down. I hunt with people that bow hunt and can take down a caribou and moose with an arrow.
I would like to see a 2 yr. moratorium on”Gun Free Zones” Like the church shooting last yr. That guy shot 2 people and was killed in immediately. I know it dosen’t fit the Left’s agenda but if 2.3.4/5 guys would have leveled him more people would be alive today. Gun free zone equals target rich.
I understand some of what you are saying but please try to understand my point of view… He was protected from head to toe so if anyone had a concealed weapon it would not have done any good, other than irritating him more, possibly. But the bigger point, what does anyone need a AR15 for with a magazine that can hold 100 rounds? What about an AK47? What about all the other rounds he purchased… 6,000 plus? Have your guns but please do not make it sound like those that are on the other side of this issue are the ones with the problem. That is and was a problem when 70 people were shot, even knowing he has to be a nut job. Please tell me whose rights were being infringed on. Not the NRA. There have to be limits like everything else in life.
I’m going to be commenting step by step the article because I found some errors.just for you to have an external impression of a non-US citizien and non-firearm owner. I think different opinion are helpful; always(even if childish).
1)I just read on wikipedia(sorry it’s not the appropriate source but I found it quite legit):
“In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home”.
If it’s within the home how have you-or dear God, someone-would take a person(gunman) down in a theatre?ok it’s a concealed arm;why would you carry it into a theatre?
1.to prevent a massacre
2.to make a massacre
the solution to number2 would be not permitting the sell of guns or at least not allowing them out of home). number1 results inconsistent by the time problem number2 is solved.
2)the second paragraph has a distorted tone, a sort of contraddiction: Natalia just stated she would kill or let-dear God-somebody kill a person! I personally believe the political knee-jerk is not much of a big deal-morally talking.they just do their job(ex. after the 9/11 would you have waited a month to let the crushing heartbreaking to have relief or act promptly?). as politiacians they took advantage of the situation(ok that’s a problem of political class) but I guess they act in order to propose a solution. What will the NRA-or NRA politician funded- do? here’s what I think they’ll do: .
3)I don’t think it’s callous.I think it’s a good way to take time to study a good defense. To make clear that guns don’t kill people, people kill people?(in this case I suggest to watch this video on youtube that states this position without chance of reply: /watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk)
4)I don’t like the article since by the ending it doesn’t provide any conclusion.
” I can tell you that disarming the general, law abiding public is a knee jerk reaction that will only have unintended negative consequences.”
this is not supported by any argumentation in the entire article. a prediction I can maybe make about unintended things that would happen if the disarming passes as a law is that you won’t have to update this website any longer, weapons producers will have a piece of the market cut(but fortunately they provide support to the military forces so no problem they can round off their bank account by supporting war-did you notice US is involved in a conflict every once in a while and that NRA has a site called political victory fund???In Italy election private funding as been abolished some decades ago after cases of politician’s corruption-sorry for the digression).
“Banning guns does not ban evil”, I agree, but there’s a simile with chemistry, it’s like banning a catalyst, this slow down the reaction(to kill/to unleash anger-depression-mental illness).
“Banning guns does not ban evil. And any sort of gun ban ensures not a lack of violence, but an INCREASE.”
Is this a Natalia’s opinion or is this supported by a scientific study?
it’s properly written though, this topics will be treated accurately in a second article. I hope to read that article.
Sisco
You ‘logic’ (whether or not you in from or not from the US) is TOTALLY flawed from the beginning. You ‘assume’ (history says incorrectly) that simply passing laws would prevent someone who wants to “2. Cause a massacre” to abide by that law and never be able to own a gun. In short, the ‘world’ and our society simply (hate to bread it to you) don’t ‘work’ that way! You presume that we live in some sort of ‘perfect’ system where all one has to do to prevent a problem is to ‘pass a law’ and everyone (criminals and sick mentally disturbed, etc) will automatically abide by that law. We have laws against murder – does murder stop? We have laws against drugs – does drug usage and availability stop? We have laws against drunk driving – did all people stop drinking and driving after this law was passed? There are laws in Russia, Mexico, England, New York, and many other places where laws have been passed to outlaw guns – did all the criminals suddenly turn in their guns? But, you forget something even bigger (and I don’t know what country you are from) and that is that our 2nd Amendment is there to protect us from a tyrannical criminal government, not criminals primarily. Also, when our military fires missiles from a drone and it kills a multitude of innocents just to kill on so-called ‘terrorist’, we all applaud and could care less about those (in one case close to 200) deaths. But, a crazy person (probably mind controlled by this tyrannical and corrupt government of ours as all evidence points to) kills 12 people and people like you immediately want to use that as an excuse and justification to disarm me? Well, all I have to say is that either our genes are drastically different or you have an agenda of your own! “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin
This thug had no expectations of anyone shooting back at him, and if he did think he’d get shot he is go great a coward to have carried out his plan. If someone had shot back this guy would have run a way. He chose this venue for his act specifically because he knew everyone would be unarmed and vulnerable and there was virtually no chance of being harmed.
Cowards and bullies attack people who they are not afraid of and believe cannot do them harm. They don’t want to get hurt any more than their victims do. Cowards and bullies like this prey primarily on other people’s fears. If you show a bully or petty thug that you can hurt them they’ll usually leave you alone and go find another victim to prey on.
We must stop making ourselves into victims. We must change these misguided utopian ideologies prevalent in our culture which cannot equate vulnerability with victimhood.
The greatest self-defense weapon we have is located directly between our ears. Packing a .45 ACP enhances this self-defense capability to a fine degree, to be sure. But packing it stupidly as in not using our primary tool (brain) in conjunction with our secondary tool (pistol) makes the difference between wisely-safe and foolishly-dangerous.
Looking to our firearms as our primary means of self-defense isn’t the best answer. Brain first, practice second, and carrying third is a winning combination.
A wise man once said:
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” – Robert A. Heinlein
This coward had no intention of backing up his actions with his life.
Well said Joni… I live in a very very rural community of about 300 +- people and every person here is armed. Why? Because our county is around 7000 square miles with only a sheriff and 5 deputies, oh, and 2 state police that are about 45 miles away…. Imagine having to need a PUBLIC SERVANT to come and PROTECT you from some bad things happening to you. Needless to say, everyone here is very polite, loving and kind. Oh and by the way, did I mention we also have lots of wolves, mountain lions, bears and pesky coyotes. Hugs and a good day to you……..
I didn’t read all the comments here, so I don’t know if this has been mentioned or not…but in Aurora, both the theater and the city itself have anti-gun regs in place; the theater doesn’t allow any firearms whatsoever, whether concealed or not, and the city ordinance allows for carry, but not the discharge of the weapon unless you’re an on-duty cop or at the shooting range.
I should point out however, that I also agree that if someone at that theater were carrying, I think lives would’ve been saved and Holmes would either be dead or injured and in custody.
You make the point that you wish that you or someone else had been armed and returned fire. What no one has brought up yet in comments is that the movie theater posted its establishment as gun free. So though I’m sure in a crowded theater there must have been at least a few licensed gun owners they chose to obey the rules and leave their defensive weapons at home or in their cars.
Would an armed citizen have been able to return fire and stop the carnage? Maybe yes, maybe no, but because of the restrictions placed on its patrons by the theater we will never know.
I am a gun owner. I have a concealed weapons permit. I am a hunter. I am a vet who had to kill the enemy while serving in Iraq on three tours. I was wounded twice. I saw more violence then most of you will only see on the edited news and the fake crap they show in movies. Saving Private Ryan was the closest thing in films I’ve ever seen that shows realistic combat.
I support the 2nd Ammendment. I do not do this blindly. It was written with the spirit and ideal by wise men who knew the tyranny of a government (King George) over it’s people, and that as long as the average citizen was armed, they were a threat to any tyrannical government. However, this was done at the time of muskets. Domestic violence of the type and scale of our time did not exist. There was little gun violence in the home
because of the amount of time it took to load muskets and flintlock pistols. There was no such thing as the type of mass murder by loner-crazies for this reason. Sure they could use a bomb, but making one or getting one was almost impossible. Even owning a musket at the time was too expensive for the average citizen, which is why many recruited at the beginning of the Revolutionary War didn’t own any. For farmers, it was one of the most expensive pieces of property they owned.
Here we are today. Now, almost ANYONE can own a weapon. They’re still expensive, but they can be had. We can buy as many as we want and as much ammo as we want. Okay, here’s my problem…
The population of our thirteen original colonies was about a million and a half citizens. That’s just about the population of just the city of Philadelphia today.
We have over 300 MILLION in our entire nation, living in seperate states. Yet, somehow, somewhere, someone got the idea in their head that our government – not a foreign government – our government, a government made of representatives (and a LOT of representatives) and people we know – even family members,could somehow, someday, take away our right to own any gun (not just military style guns, ANY gun)so they could take over our country in some type of right or left wing coup.
I’m sorry,I don’t get it. I’m a vet. I didn’t know anyone, officer or enlisted, who would have believed in such fiction. If any members believe this, they are frightened, paranoid and delusional. My father was a police officer. His father was one. They were also war vets. They believed in the 2nd Amendment. They own guns and hunted. The saw a lot of crime in their lives and a lot of death. What they did believe is that the men and women they worked with and defended would never take up arms against their fellow citizens. They knew the chances of any type of right or left wing insurrection in a country of this size would be impossible. They did however, believe in the law. They were Republicans and patriots. They did not understand why the average American should be allowed to buy unlimited amounts of ammo and guns with as much ease as it is to obtain a fishing rod. Not in our time. Not in a time of over population and where most citizens haven’t the slightest idea of what gun violence does to a good person who has to pull a trigger. We are spun with stories of isolated crime incidents in urban areas where people are victimize by thugs with guns, and somehow convinced the solution to this is to allow anyone of legal age to be able to arm themselves with assault weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammo. No, not a pistol. Not a shotgun. I’m talking military designed war weapons. I salute that old man in Florida for taking down those thugs. I’m also thankful he did not accidentally hit an innocent bystander, which can happen (guess how many friendly fire incidents I witnessed?).
I own a shotgun, a hunting rifle, and a handgun. The shotgun I use for skeet and home defense, as well as the pistol. I don’t need to own anything else. I have no problem registering my weapons with the police..because they are on MY side. They don’t care if I own these. They do, as my father did, have a problem with someone owning military grade weapons and ammo.
If the the theater killer had been unable to obtain his weapons because of more solid weapons laws, then it may have prevented this tragedy. We need better laws (not more..better ones), and better uniform enforcement. We should not be able to purchase any weapon or ammo over the internet. If a citizen cant get it in a gun shop, then too bad. But..they’re more expensive in the store. So?? They should be! It’s an enormous responsibility to own one, and if it costs a lot, good. It makes people appreciate it that much more.
Could I have stopped that killer in the theater with my concealed Glock? Maybe. After years of combat, I can tell you that I may have had a good chance, but I could have easily been done in myself trying. Would I rather have the chance? Sure, but I would have had a better chance if he had been armed with only a pistol (easy to miss with)- not so good a chance with his shotgun or the rifle. Even better, I wish he had only a knife or other instrument. Anyone who tells you they wish they could have been there because “I COULD HAVE taken that nut out” with absolute certainly is a nut themself.
So, anytime our fellow gun owners start ranting about how restricting the type of weapons we can own is going to kill the 2nd Amendment eventually, and how that translates into us becoming eventual slaves to our government in some ridiculous vision of the future, we need to look at where they’re really coming from. Last, if any of these people are in law enforcement or the military (or have been), then I can tell you their paranoid opinion is just one of a very small paranoid minority.
Natalie, The BIG thing you MISS in this article is that our forefathers didn’t put the 2nd Amendment in place simply so that we could protect ourselves against criminals and crazed mass shooters! While personal defense was a secondary reason, let us NEVER forget the PRIMARY reason – and that was for the 2nd Amendment to be there as the final antidote to a TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT! So, while I don’t directly disagree with all you said, I am critical of it because all your words focus entirely on ‘preventing crimes and saving lives’ which detracts people’s focus from understand the MAIN reason for the 2nd Amendment and only focusing on the secondary purpose.