Does the Colorado Shooting Prove the Need for More Gun Control Laws? >
James Holmes Proves Need for Tighter Gun Ownership Regulations
Children being gunned down by maniacs is not the price of freedom
July 26, 2012
About Joshua Horwitz:
Joshua Horwitz, J.D., is executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
In the wake of the horrific shooting massacre in Aurora, Colo., the National Rifle Association's Faustian bargain has now been made clear to us all. We are told that we must allow innocent Americans—including children—to be gunned down by homicidal maniacs with legally-acquired arsenals because this is "the price we must pay for freedom." All people of conscience must stand resolute against this radical and morally bankrupt idea.
There is much we still need to learn about James Holmes. But we do know many things about him. We know that he is a disturbed young man whose behavior was so odd that one gun range owner in rural Colorado rejected his application for membership. We know that he passed two background checks that took only the most cursory look at his mental health background. Because Holmes hadn't been involuntarily committed or formally adjudicated by a court as a "mental defective," he was free to buy all the guns he wanted. But how many Americans struggling with serious mental health issues fall into one of those two narrow categories?
[See a collection of political cartoons on Gun Control and Gun Rights.]
We also know James Holmes was able to outfit himself for war. When he walked into the Century Aurora 16 theater, he wore full body armor and carried four guns: two semiautomatic Glock handguns, a 12-gauge shotgun, and an AR-15 style assault rifle with a 100-round drum magazine. The NRA would have us believe that the latter weapon is a "modern sporting rifle." Rational Americans will immediately see that such a firearm has no legitimate sporting purpose. It is a battlefield weapon (a semiautomatic version of the military's M-16 rifle) that in a civilian's hands is only good for two things: mass murder and violent insurrection against our government. The AR-15 was one of the assault rifles banned under a federal law that Congress allowed to expire in 2004. It is now clear they made a tragic mistake.
When James Madison drafted the Second Amendment, his intent was to enhance our nation's domestic security, not to promote anarchy and the licentiousness of armed mobs that so horrified him during incidents like Shays' Rebellion. It is time for today's elected officials—including President Barack Obama—to show similar foresight and act to prevent the carnage that has become such a constant and shameful aspect of American life. Condolences will not be enough to prevent the next massacre.
- Join the debate on Facebook.
- Follow U.S. News Debate Club on Twitter.
- Check out U.S. News Weekly: an insider's guide to politics and policy.
- Other Arguments
-
#12390405
No — One tragic massacre does not warrant the disarmament of all law-abiding citizens
GENE HOFFMAN, Chairman of the Calguns Foundation
-
#22088408
No — If theatergoers had been armed and trained, they could have protected themselves
MIKE SWEENEY, Communications Manager at the Gun Owners' Action League
-
#31773357
No — Proponents for more gun control are making a dangerous argument
ERICH PRATT, Director of Communications for Gun Owners of America
-
#41745360
No — Passing more laws isn't the solution to gun violence
DAVE WORKMAN, Senior Editor of TheGunMag.com
-
#53791845
Yes — Even gun owners support background checks for gun sales
DAN GROSS, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center
-
#73641919
Yes — We need restrictions on both gun and ammunition sales
JOSH SUGARMANN, Founder and Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center,
