RANGER AGAINST WAR: License to Kill <

Monday, October 08, 2012

License to Kill


 The personal is the political
--Carol Hanisch

That second dose of soma had raised
a quite impenetrable wall between
the actual universe and their minds 
--Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
______________________

A few additional thoughts on the recent mass killing in Aurora, Colorado (Spree Killers follow-on):

The main question that should arise from such events is not, "Why are we so well-armed?" but rather, "Why are we so violent?

From that compelling and inscrutable question to some particulars, the answers to which have also been kept opaque.

[1]  News accounts say shooter Holmes  possessed "explosives", but give no details.  There are allusions to "fire works" rigged as booby traps, but fireworks are not "explosive devices"; fireworks and gunpowder (propellants) are not even close to being explosives, so why the hyperbole?

This crazy could have done just as much damage with his shotgun or pistol alone, yet the press fronts the assault rifle angle, adding to and exploiting the mystique of a tragic situation.

[2] It is reported that Holmes possessed a "gas canister" but what exactly was this cannister?

[3] If Holmes was kitted out in body armor and helmet, then why did he not engage the police in a gun fight? Why wear armor to kill soft targets?

[4] Holmes' AR-15 assault rifle jammed, preventing him from emptying its 100-round magazine. Ranger consistently writes that people who use hicap magazines are amateurs, and this situation bears this out.

If 100-round magazines were reliable than the military would use them.  Losers like Holmes do not know this fact.

[5] The Denver Post reported that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) that expired in 2004 would have prevented the sale of the AR-15 rifle used in the shooting, and the 100-round drum magazine attached to it.  In fact, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban is a cruel hoax played upon the American people -- there has never been a viable assault weapons ban.

The Executive Order (under George H.W. Bush) banned only the import of assault rifles.  Additionally, assault rifles are like pornography in that they both defy description and logic in U.S. Code.  Until 1994 there was no assault weapons definition in U.S. Statutes.  They were still produced domestically.

The 1994-2004 AWB was a cosmetic ban only which did NOT remove AR-type rifles from the marketplace; manufacturers simply removed the telescoping stocks, sometimes pistol grips, bayonet studs, flash hiders and grenade launching capabilities.  (Incidentally, assault rifles historically were by definition selective fire, which means "auto-semi-or safe"; U.S. law ignores this fact.)

The 1994 AWB applied only to the citizenry, and not to police or security agencies, a bit of hypocrisy.  As well, the AWB did not remove "kill your neighbor" weapons from gun shops, so the law did not do much to keep us citizens "safe" from weapons harm.

The usually incendiary William Saletan of Slate online wrote that "Someone pulling a firearm on Holmes could have triggered an even wilder shooting spree," a totally useless bit of baseless conjecture.  A trained gunman with a concealed carry permit (CCW) could have neutralized the gunman.  Or not.

We cannot know since it did not happen.  However, a cinema showing a midnight film not equipped with an off-duty police presence for security detail is a real failure, with a real tragic outcome.

The AWB of 1994 was ineffective in terms of reducing gun-related crime.  Historically, the AR15-type weapons constitute less than 2% of gun crime statistics, so it is hard to understand the argument against black rifles.  They can be had for $200 and are cheap and prolific; the cheap SKS rifles are not assault weapons by U.S. standards, anyway -- they just look the part.

It is the ubiquity of cheap weapons which is the key to gun control, since most criminals cannot afford expensive weapons like the AR-15, at $1,200 to $3,000.  If they could afford fancy guns they would be collectors, and not criminals

Again the question, not "Why are we so well-armed?" but rather, "Why are we so violent?" As on the national, so on the personal level.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

4 Comments:

Blogger FDChief said...

Because humans have always been killers; Homo homini lupus - "Man is a wolf to man" ol' Plautus said 2,300 years ago.

So it makes perfect sense to me to give us smaller teeth. If you can kill ten people with a knife or a club, more power to you, but, then, I've never felt the need for even semi-auto fire. Bolt action works just fine for me.

Monday, October 8, 2012 at 6:31:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Peter of Lone Tree said...

According to some, we aren't starting soon enough:
Charlie Fuqua, Arkansas Legislative Candidate, Endorses Death Penalty For Rebellious Children In Book.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 6:31:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Brooklyn Red Leg said...

Because we accept as rational the idea of government which is organized violence. Its a bit absurd (truth be told) to question why people become violent when violence is the very basis of our form of organization. Granted, most people don't consider paying their taxes or obeying inane (and many times contradictory) statutes (not laws). However, that does not make them any less violent. Don't pay your taxes, get caught and you'll get to spend some quality time in a cage being a Slave (since that is perfectly legal via the 13th Amendment).

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 2:06:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Syrbal/Labrys said...

Yes, why are we so violent? Yes, FDChief is right; we've always killed. But, lately, there is a sense that it is deeply, rottenly personal. When men running for office have the nerve to say parents should be able to request the death penalty for their own disobedient children, there is some new high-powered crazy going down.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 4:45:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

<< Home