Yes. The perennial debate that returns every couple years after another psycho goes on a rampage on the public has returned … and right on cue.

Now, I’m not a big control control guy, but a recent comment on Facebook about gun rights went too far. Sadly, I’m sure this was not an isolated case. Via the Daily Kos:

CNN/The shooter was identified by two federal law enforcement officers as James Holmes, 24, of Aurora.

Its been less than 12 hours since the tragedy in Aurora, CO.  Amid the expressions of hope for the victims and their families and the sorrow over their losses that has filled my Facebook this morning, I saw this:

Ugh, this Colorado thing makes me sick…just awful..too bad no one else was armed and could defend themselves..such a tragedy.

As I said, I’m not a gun control nut, and I think something can be said for responsible ownership. Neither do I take the stance that we should eradicate all guns everywhere and in all circumstances except in police departments. Some of my progressive friends will disagree mightily with me here, but if there were no guns, psychopaths and other mentality unbalanced people would still find other means to carry out their actions. The important point is not about the means or method but the will and/or desire to wreak havoc on society. Hell, death by gunshot is a rather “clean” way to go compared to other means by which a person can kill (stabbing, bombing, arson, drowning, choking, etc.). That said, I tend to agree with the Daily Kos writer, who more or less shares my view on gun control:

Look, I’m an RKBA kind of guy.  I have no problem with responsible ownership of firearms.  I have, perhaps, a stance that may be more centrist on this than my liberal friends and family.  On the other hand, I was a Marine for 4 years.  I know how to responsibly keep, maintain, and use a firearm.  I know the power that it has and the proper circumstances under which it should be utilized.

However, what drives me up the wall are people that I term, “gun fetishists,” that seem to think that the mere presence of an armed populace will deter violent crime, regardless of any extenuating circumstances.  People who make the quote above.

Allow me to inject some reality into the discussion: Going to the gun range and knowing all the firearm safety rules are a far, FAR cry from being able to use a deadly weapon in a chaotic situation with very limited viability, high collateral damage potential, and no tactical awareness.  In a darkened, crowded theater, the potential to cause more harm than good goes up exponentially.  The average police officer doesn’t even train to be able to handle that type of situation alone… that’s what highly trained specialists using highly specialized equipment are for.  The aggressor, after all, doesn’t care who he hits, because he’s targeting everyone.  A basically trained person with a firearm taking him down without killing or injuring any of the hundreds of people around you is stuff that happens in the movies not in real life.

Bottom line: the likelihood of us waking up to even more horrific news because someone in the crowd was armed and decided to take the shooter on is far greater than us waking up to a story of a hero who defended a theater.  Sometimes the idealized fantasy we wish for, if attempted to be put into practice, leads to a more horrific tragedy.