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.

A Farewell to Arms

Give them lots of sex, perversion and rape,
give them lots of violence, and plenty to hate
--Give the People What They Want, The Kinks

This world's divided into two kinds of people:
the hunter and the hunted.
Luckily I'm the hunter. Nothing can change that
--The Most Dangerous Game,
Richard Connell

I've got my finger on the trigger
I ain't lettin' go
--Love is in Control, Donna Summer

[T]he deadliest sociopaths aren’t the ones
who dye their hair red
and identify with comic book nihilists
--Child Killer as "Comforter-in-Chief,
____________________

The genus Homo is populated by mostly violent species, the most recent incarnation the reasoning sapiens taking a commandment that they shall not kill. They have not been spectacularly successful with that injunction, however.

We in the United States have had wars to exterminate Indians, to retain slavery and to avenge the sinking of ships (the U.S.S. Maine and the R.M.S. Lusitania, for example.) In addition, we are tremendously innovative when it comes to creating weaponry, and have unleashed the power of the atom in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now, we can even bomb people remotely, so the trigger man need not feel the tang of immediate remorse as his targets are merely moving images on a screen.

We take it as gospel to answer aggression by using greater violence than that of the precipitating event. The Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) in which the U.S. is currently immersed is one example. Though a success if measured by outnumbered body counts, it provides no benefit to the retaliating country. The U.S. faced the abyss of nuclear war in the Cuban Missile Crisis, and presently has five Navy carrier groups, a Strategic Air Command and an Army, all of which possess the nuclear weaponry to destroy continents with weapons leftover for follow-ons, should there be any need.

These are the national imperatives that quash "Thou Shalt not Kill", yet we wail and gnash teeth when another crazy kills people for no reason other than the sport of the kill. Compared to our nuclear potential, the bullets that rip holes though bodies are as mosquito bites to the population (though the bite is still deadly).

Guns cannot destroy the earth but nuclear bombs can, and they can be employed without unrolling the 2nd Amendment. We have a President with his finger on the trigger and he gets to manipulate these toys without a background check or a waiting period. Ranger does not doubt that the U.S. would destroy the world if push came to shove; only a fool would doubt that any nuclear nation would fail to light up the sky if they felt threatened by a like-armed enemy.

So excuse us if another senseless shooting fails to elicit crocodile tears. It is only a matter of time before man will destroy his little neck of the universe through his hubris and folly, and all of his efforts contrariwise will be for naught.