By Michael Bryan
Russell Pearce is a terrible human being. He should be condemned, and then shunned and ignored in our political life. If only he would shut the hell up, I would pleased to never have to mention him again.
In response to the horrific slaughter of innocents in Aurora, CO, Pearce shared the following insipid statement on his Facebook page:
"Lives were lost because of a bad man, not because he had a weapon, but because noone was prepared to stop it."
In Pearce's worldview, the problem Aurora highlights is not that a mad man had access to assault weapons and used them on his fellow citizens, but that those citizens weren't sufficiently armed and ready to meet the threat.
Yes, the killer was a bad man, but he had far more than just 'a weapon'. He had a fucking armoury. He had four guns with hundreds of rounds of ready ammunition. He had body armour from head to toe. His home was full of IEDs that required the evacuation of surrounding apartment buildings and are still being disarmed.
Consider how that night might have been different if that bad, mad man had not been able to arm and armour himself to the degree that he posed a lethal threat to the lives and safety of his fellow citizens – including the police. If he had not been able to legally aquire the assault weapons that allowed this unstable monster to mow down dozens of his fellow human beings in moments? If he had not been able to armour himself to a degree that he was effectively immune to any civilian weapon?
If this bad man had not been able to transform himself into a walking terminator, then perhaps Pearce would have a point, albeit an insensitive and boorish one. But to place the burden of self-protection on every citizen, when any mad man has the means and legal right to purchase equipment more suited to a war zone than a suburban movie theater, is to stack the deck against peaceful citizens and ensure that more innocents will be gunned down by ferociously armed-to-the-teeth mad murderers.
For Pearce to claim that this tragedy was not a result of the uniquely loose nature of America's gun laws, but to lack of weapons among those in the theater is absurd, stupid, and insulting – much like the man himself.
I do believe that responsible citizens should have the right to own and carry guns for hunting, sport, and self defense. But no American outside the armed forces or police has any need – nor should one have the legal right – to arm himself with the sort of equipment that makes one such a dire threat to public safety.
Assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition systems have no place in the armoury of any citizen merely interested in defense of themselves and others, sport, or hunting. No private person going about their daily lives has a need for the sort of combat weapons to which this monster had legal access.
Allowing the sale of such equipment is an unacceptable threat to public safety, because the only possible use of such weaponry is the sort of mass slaughter we've far too frequently in our nation.
Or political terrorism. Or armed insurrection.
Given the proclivities and history of the reactionary right in this country, maybe that explains the real motive of the right-wing paranoids who would block any legislation that would protect our citizens from such weapons of slaughter.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have never tried it mbryanaz. Maybe you should ask Timothy McVeigh (oh sorry, he’s in hell), Andrew Kehoe (McVeigh’s roommate in hell), John Graham (also hell), Harris and Klebold of Columbine, on second thought, don’t ask them, their bombs failed to explode (they are also in hell anyway). About the only one I can think of right now that is not in hell is the Unabomber (Ted Kaczynski). He did not kill all of his victims simultaneously but I am sure he could give you some pointers on how to make and transport a harmful device.
I hesitate to engage on the obviously braindead comment above by Nidan, but when is the last time you tried to build an explosive device you could easily transport and could kill or maim dozens of people? This is neither easy nor nonobvious to those who watch for such activity. It is deeply unserious to think that it would be as easy to perpetrate such mass killing with anything other than an assault rifle. We should should make it as hard as humanly possible to commit such acts, not as convenient as can be imagined.
I hate to pile on Russell Pearce (actually, I don’t), but what about the smoke bombs or tear gas the shooter let loose? Combine the shooting and chaos with obscured vision and possibly stinging eyes, and even trained police or armed services people would have trouble responding in the heartbeat they had to somehow stop the madman, let alone a possible local hero with a gun.
“His home was full of IEDs that required the evacuation of surrounding apartment buildings and are still being disarmed.”
Holms was obviously intent on the harm and terror of unsuspecting citizens as evidenced by the pre-planning involved in constructing the deadfall at his apartment. With that backdrop, please explain how any amount of “gun control” legislation would have prevented him from using one of his homemade IEDs to inflict considerably more harm in the theater than the weapons he obtained were able to deliver.
And, since we are speculating, would Holms not have been deterred had the theater not had it’s own ban on firearms?
From Wonkette: Where were the men of flight 93????
Dead. Idiot.”