When tragedy strikes, it is tempting for some to seek simple solutions to complex problems. After the horrific massacre in Aurora, Colorado, many of the Left immediately called for tighter gun control laws.
In a recent opinion piece, E.J. Dionne wrote,
"So let’s ask ourselves: Aren’t we all in danger of being complicit in throwing up our hands and allowing the gun lobby to write our gun laws? Awful things happen, we mourn them and then we shrug. And that’s why they keep happening. "
For folks like Dionne, the answer is simple - our nation's gun laws "increase the likelihood of mass killings of this sort" so, we need more laws.
I can't explain why James Holmes "entered the movie auditorium wearing a ballistics helmet, bullet-proof vest, bullet-proof leggings, gas mask and gloves" or why he "detonated multiple smoke bombs, and then began firing at viewers in the sold-out auditorium" killing at least 12 and wounding nearly 60 others. Whatever his motive may turn out to be, he could have killed just as many without the use of firearms. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and wounded almost 700 people using ammonium nitrate fertilizer. In 1927, Andrew Kehoe killed 38 elementary school children, two teachers, four other adults in what is now know has the Bath School disaster. According to one report, James Holmes "did such a good job of booby trapping his apartment and arming it against intrusion that police are now saying they may send robots in to diffuse all the weapons. Obviously, had he been unable to obtain firearms, Holmes could have used home-made bombs in his attack on the Aurora, Colorado movie theater.
I don't have an answer. There are no simple solutions and anyone claiming the contrary doesn't know what he's talking about.