That James Holmes is insane, few may doubt. Our gun laws are also insane, but many refuse to make the connection. The United States is one of few developed nations that accepts the notion of firearms in public hands. In theory, the citizenry needs to defend itself. Not a single person at the Aurora, Colo., theater shot back, but the theory will still be defended.I haven't yet heard anyone opine that Holmes is insane, although his attorney will probably research the claim and medical professionals will debate it. That's a question of medicine and law. However, our gun laws are the result of careful deliberation, lawful legislation, and executive agreement. To opine that any act of the legislature is insane... well, insanity is as insanity does.
What the gun banners don't get is that the tide is turned. Gun control is a losing proposition to elected officials, and the Courts have held that the 2nd Amendment has meaning. Whether the press likes it or not, the 2nd Amendment is the law.
Now, as to why not a single person in that theater shot back, I'd have to look at the demographics, the laws in Aurora, Colorado, and the rules posted in the theater. If the local laws and the rules of the theater conspired to disarm the audience, then the words of Cesare Beccaria (from 1764) ring ever more true. Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? Laws designed to disarm the people tend to disarm the law-abiding citizen, while leaving the predator untouched.
This is Ebert's strawman: Because no one shot back, the right is worthless. I guess that the same thing could be said of speaking, or voting, or those other rights that are protected in our constitution. More likely, this thinking is accurately described by Tam.
...or so says Roger Ebert. And believe me, if anybody knows "insane", it's Roger. He's personally trod every square foot of that terrain.Heh!