Some thoughts about the horrendous shootings in the Colorado movie theater showing The Dark Night 3 last night:
1. The single most effective way of preventing such tragedies in the future, or reducing their likelihood, is for President Obama and Congress to step up and restore the ban on assault (semi-automatic) weapons. No law-abiding citizen should have need for them. Their banning would not violate the Second Amendment - which, unlike the First Amendment, does not say "Congress shall make no law". Rather, the Second Amendment says government should not "infringe" upon the rights of people to bear arms. The banning of a weapon of mass killing would not infringe on the right of citizens to bear other kinds of guns. (Just a ban on sale of assault weapons to anyone under 30 years of age would help - it would have prevented the attack on Rep. Giffords last year, the murders at Virginia Tech, and what happened in Aurora.)
2. The notion that violence in the movies or in any medium triggers this kind of real-life violence is not supported by the facts: Millions and millions of people have watched violent movies and television, and played violent video games - and, thank goodness, mass killings have happened just handfuls of times. (See my debate with Jack Thompson a few years ago about violent video games for more.)
3. But motion picture theaters need to think of ways to make their premises more safe. Movies - especially horror movies - have for decades sought to give the viewer tingles of fear by showing people on the screen menaced and killed by monsters and psyschos in the darkness. With what happened in Aurora, Colorado making this a reality, the motion picture industry may need to rethink such movies, or at very least provide increased means of protection in theaters, such as metal detectors. Motion picture theaters have in effect been on the ropes since the rise of television in the 1950s. The ease today of also viewing movies on tablets and smart phones is only putting more pressure on theaters. Unlike schools, where attendance is required, movie-going is strictly optional. The public needs to feel that exercising this option is safe.
4. The Batman franchise - in particular, The Dark Knight trilogy - will likely forever be associated with the tragedy of Aurora. The Batman story, at its core, is about the darkness in the human soul (which Batman is able to overcome, or channel into doing good). The spilling over of this darkness from fiction into our reality - where it of course already exists - is a signal moment in the history of movies, and even story-telling in general. What impact this will have on Batman's place in our popular culture is hard to say - it will likely make the masked crusader both more and less intriguing - but we can be sure that Batman will never be seen the same.
1. The single most effective way of preventing such tragedies in the future, or reducing their likelihood, is for President Obama and Congress to step up and restore the ban on assault (semi-automatic) weapons. No law-abiding citizen should have need for them. Their banning would not violate the Second Amendment - which, unlike the First Amendment, does not say "Congress shall make no law". Rather, the Second Amendment says government should not "infringe" upon the rights of people to bear arms. The banning of a weapon of mass killing would not infringe on the right of citizens to bear other kinds of guns. (Just a ban on sale of assault weapons to anyone under 30 years of age would help - it would have prevented the attack on Rep. Giffords last year, the murders at Virginia Tech, and what happened in Aurora.)
2. The notion that violence in the movies or in any medium triggers this kind of real-life violence is not supported by the facts: Millions and millions of people have watched violent movies and television, and played violent video games - and, thank goodness, mass killings have happened just handfuls of times. (See my debate with Jack Thompson a few years ago about violent video games for more.)
3. But motion picture theaters need to think of ways to make their premises more safe. Movies - especially horror movies - have for decades sought to give the viewer tingles of fear by showing people on the screen menaced and killed by monsters and psyschos in the darkness. With what happened in Aurora, Colorado making this a reality, the motion picture industry may need to rethink such movies, or at very least provide increased means of protection in theaters, such as metal detectors. Motion picture theaters have in effect been on the ropes since the rise of television in the 1950s. The ease today of also viewing movies on tablets and smart phones is only putting more pressure on theaters. Unlike schools, where attendance is required, movie-going is strictly optional. The public needs to feel that exercising this option is safe.
4. The Batman franchise - in particular, The Dark Knight trilogy - will likely forever be associated with the tragedy of Aurora. The Batman story, at its core, is about the darkness in the human soul (which Batman is able to overcome, or channel into doing good). The spilling over of this darkness from fiction into our reality - where it of course already exists - is a signal moment in the history of movies, and even story-telling in general. What impact this will have on Batman's place in our popular culture is hard to say - it will likely make the masked crusader both more and less intriguing - but we can be sure that Batman will never be seen the same.
8 comments:
Paul, you know my politics, and you know where I stand on most issues, but on guns, I think I am way to the right of you, although, for practical purposes, I don't see the application of "assault type weapons" for every day use. BUT (and this is a big "BUT"), I do oppose putting limits on gun ownership, simply because this opens the door for limits in the future.
What happened is of course tragic and no-one wishes it a repeat. But I fear, a repeat could happen. Apparently this person knew chemicals. What if, instead of weapons he had utilized only chemicals in his assault? What would we be banning then? Home cleaning chemicals? And if you deny me the ability to defend myself in my home with a handgun (that's all I have, and all I need) what will you take away next?
Do we want to become a nation like Great Britain, full of CCTV Cameras, where your every move is watched and questioned and no-one trusts anyone?
The second amendment was written so that people are able to arm themselves against the government. Should it be reconsidered? Every time something tragic like this happens, the instant reaction is that it should, but no-one ever sees an oppressive regime rising to oppress the people, once it rises, it is to late to lament the laws and the freedoms you gave-up as part of getting there.
That is my argument, and remember, I am the liberal with the gun, what is the armed conservative going to say?
As i tweeted awhile ago, I'm with ya on point two. There's no correlation between violence in movies and violence in real life. Millions watch these films and don't mow down a movie theater. It's like looking at airplane crashes. Thousands of successful trips every week. We hear only about the ones that don't make it, and that's blown way out of proportion to reality. Even so, I don't fly personally. I'm not encouraged to start.
Gun control doesn't work. There are more laws on the books already and we can't properly enforce the ones we have. The solution is to find out what drives these idiots to believe killing unarmed civilians is a good idea. That is usually attributable to archaic belief systems It's too early to tell if the alleged shooter here was a religious nut or a nihilist crackpot. Either way, crazy beliefs are still crazy.
Whenever something like this happens, people are quick to place blame somewhere. Movies. Rock music. Rap music. Video games. Parental negligence. Too many guns on the streets. Not enough guns in the hands of citizens. The list is endless. Ultimately there's only one person to blame for this, and that's the idiot who pulled the trigger.
He had a choice. He chose poorly. Many have to suffer for that choice, and the repercussions will be felt long after this day is a dull ache of a memory. I doubt the Batman franchise will suffer much for this. Even bad publicity is still publicity. However, what might suffer is ticket sales. Movie theaters will soon become required to police all of their exits, which will cost the movie theaters for increased security detail and that cost will be passed on to the consumer, if it doesn't put the final nail in the coffin of the cinemaplex.
Don't 'believe' me? Remember Drive Ins? I rest my case.
M.P. and Zach - thanks for the thoughtful comments (as always).
My problem with assault weapons is this: A rifle can be used for hunting, a hand gun for self-defense. What purpose does an assault weapon serve: only to kill and wound masses of people, at a fast pace. As such, keeping them out of the hands of anyone other than in the military, or, under strict supervision, the police, seems just common sense. As Gov Rendell said earlier today, we already draw the line at rocket launchers - we should extend it to assault weapons. (Again, the Second Amendment does not say "no law" can be made to control arms.)
Indeed, and I agree with you Paul on Assault weapons. Who would want to own them and why?
But guess what? I have met plenty of types who have assault rifles, like them, know how to use them, and I understand why they own them. I myself got to fire an Uzi (Israeli type assault rifle). Most of the people I know who own them, are ex-military types, who while in the service had M-16s, and were very familiar with them. They know like AR-15s, and indeed, DO NOT USE THEM for Hunting but for home protection, or farm protection, above and beyond what a handgun would provide. I understand the argument against these weapons.
But I also understand why these people like them. Should these people not be able to have them? Most of them are sane (most of the ones I know in their 50s and 60s) and have gone through life without a history of mental issues. Where do we draw the line? I surely do not think this guy should have had an AR-15 -- I completely agree. I do not want one, though, not having served, I'd like to fire one, once (in a target range), to see how it feels.
But how do we ban them, and yet not lose our essential freedoms?
I should have said:
"... They NOW OWN AR-15s, and indeed, DO NOT USE THEM for hunting...."
Sorry for the confusion.... I wish I could edit my post!
Ooh! Reading y'all's responses reminded me of something.
I'm reminded again of "screaming fire in a movie theater" ..it's a necessary law. There is NEVER a good reason to do that. Even if there's a real fire in the movie theater, screaming that causes a panic and odds are everyone in the room's gonna sense the smoke and flame about the same time anyway. It's a law. It went thru the process of becoming a law. No one wants to rescind it. That argument is impossible for me to defend against.
It still infringes on our freedom of speech. That's not an opinion. That's not an argument. It's a fact.
We as a society have made that choice, to impede our own freedom of speech to not include screaming fire in a movie theater. However, this impediment means speech is free in name only. If screaming fire in a movie theater is a bad idea, then there are other examples one can argue, and in some cases laws already on the books impeding us yet again of our right to free speech.
As necessary as they seem, such laws put a foot in the door for censorship, and before you know it there's no such thing as free speech of any kind, unless you happen to say something that you hope everyone in earshot will like. It's a slippery slope we are already gravitating toward.
Rocket launchers are absurd. So are automatic weapons. So are semi-automatic weapons. So is hunting, really. It's an archaic practice that's rather brutal and unsightly. By the way that knife's too big and sharp for casual kitchen work. See where we're going? It's a foot in the door. Beyond that is a room we really don't want to enter.
There's enough gun control laws on the books already. We need to learn to police what we have.
Zach - I am actually against the Clear and Present Danger decision, and think the 1st Amendment does not allow banning falsely shouting fire in a crowed theater - see my Flouting of the First Amendment for more. The gist again - and this is pertinent also to M.P.'s comment - is the 1st Amendment is an absolute ban on any gov law, in contrast to the 2nd Amendment, which is inherently interpretative (what constitutes "infringement"?) In other words, the 2nd Amendment invites us to draw lines, and change where they are drawn, in response to new weapon technologies.
I understand your point, Paul. Admittedly though, in practice, both of these amendments are being treated like lines drawn in the sand. We may disagree on what constitutes a 'clear and present danger' or the definition of the word 'infringement' but the behavior by our three branches of government to be so uncertain and/or inconsistent regarding these cornerstones of our democracy weakens not just the two amendments in question, but the entire constitution as a whole.
Either our rights are protected or they are not. In the last couple decades or so our freedoms have been chipped away under the false guise of security. I don't feel either more safe or more free today than I did twenty years ago. We should feel and be both. Safety is no good if we are bound, and freedom is no good if we are dead.
We can't rob from Peter to pay Paul, here. There is no place to compromise. It is an illusion that one can be traded in for the other. Both security and freedom should go hand in hand, or else both are worthless. Ideally, we should have the freedom to own a rocket launcher if we wish, but the common sense and decency to not exercise that freedom, because having a rocket launcher is stupid... but then again it sounds like it'd be fun to have one, just so I can say I do... Maybe we silly humans don't deserve freedom.
Post a Comment