Gun Control Idiocy From Those Wacky Folks Over at ...Fox News

Here, I thought I had flown into Ohio, turns out, I overshot Ohio and ended up on the Bizarro planet. A little jet lagged and behind in my blogdasarian duties, I brought dinner back to the hotel and passed on an HBO movie where absolutely no one in the cast wore any clothes (okay, they were animated birds!), after having been assailed by a promo for Real Time with Bill Maher. (The primary problem being that Real Time isn't Real Funny!) Notice how many shows on HBO tout themselves as "Real"? Real Time, Real Sports, Real Sex. Reminds me of the lady who said, "Honey, if you have to hang a sign around your neck saying you is, then you ain't!" But, I digress...

So I watched a little bit of Special Report with Bret Baier, without Bret Baier. Charles Krauthammer was on the panel, so I thought it might not be too bad. I couldn't tell you of anything spectacular ventured on the program until this blonde, whom I surmise to be A. J. Stoddard, said something spectacularly ill informed.

Speaking of the Colorado theater shooting, she said of the ammunition he purchased, and I speak from memory, that "none of this ammunition is used for self defense."

Fancy that! I have a Glock .40 that I have personally used for self defense, which uses, wait for it, .40 cal ammunition. He carried an 870 Remington shotgun, which is an excellent home defense weapon, and an AR-15, chambered in .223. Some of you might be old enough to remember the LA riots, where Korean shopkeepers climbed up to the roofs of their shops, armed with guns very similar to the AR-15, to defend their property against looters and arsonists. I don't know if they ever had to fire a single shot, but their presence served as a deterrent.

Let's recap: All three varieties of ammunition have been used or could certainly be used for self defense. If you want to argue about the quantities of ammunition he ordered, that's another story. But, if you don't know what you're talking about, please educate yourself before you enter the adult world of discussions on firearms laws and regulations.

Which brings us to Bill O'Reilly. He hit the trifecta tonight. I almost never watch Mr. O, but after yet another lap of the channels available, I saw he was going to have Bernard Goldberg on, so I thought, Aha! Another bright spot.

So I turned it on in the background and looked up as Bill was launching into a rant. First, he made some crack about buying bazookas without the Federal government knowing about it*. This, of course, is patently absurd, particularly if you are speaking of a functional bazooka with ammunition. These are highly regulated devises that are not commonly available to civilians.

I thought it was just part of his "Shtick", that he was saying something so hyperbolic for comic effect. He followed that up with a statement that one can buy machine guns without the feds knowing about it. He generated quite a bit of faux outrage at this! Unfortunately for Bill, it isn't true. The only people who can purchase machine guns are those who have Federal Firearms Licenses (FFL).

These weapons are tightly regulated and FFLs are not easy, or inexpensive to obtain. I cannot explain why, buy Mr. O'Reilly was getting quite incensed over something that simply is not true.

He compounded the idiocy with a parting remark about how it is "irresponsible to take a six year old to a midnight showing of a movie to be killed", as if it were somehow responsible to take a six year old to a movie matinee to be killed.

Hindsight is 20/20 Bill. Except for one deranged person, taking a six year old to the movies is hardly the act of an irresponsible parent. Bad judgment? Maybe. I wouldn't have done it, but like your rhetoric about bazookas and machine guns, your use of the word "irresponsible" was, well, irresponsible.

* I heard the quote a second time. It was more like "terrorists can buy bazookas without the FBI knowiung about it. Sheesh!

Movies as Usual? Or a DVD and a Dead Bolt?

Just as 9/11 forever changed the way we (and the government) look at airports and airport security, so the theater shooing in Aurora this past week threatens to do the same for our entertainment venues.

Theater owners and associations of theater owners are making public condolences and investigating ways to beef up security in their theaters, but how much of that toothpaste is already out of the tube? Movies have always been a form of escapism - people go to the theater to sit in the dark and dream other people's dreams, and to forget about their own situation for an hour or two. The word "amusement", in fact, comes from the Greek, where the privative "a", (as in "atheist - one who believes there is no God), comes in front of "muse" - to think. Literally "to be amused" is to stop one's thinking.

From the Dark Knight Rises trailers, we see a bridge being destroyed and a football stadium, filled with onlookers, as the field literally disappears from under the feet of the players, but, everyone in the theater knows that ultimately, it's not real. It's a trick of the camera or computer. Computer generated images (CGI) combined with intricately detailed scale models create a world that can be destroyed without anyone ever getting hurt! So the guy with the dead end job (or no job), goes to the theater, and says to himself, "Yeah, I may have it bad, but look! They're trying to kill that poor SOB!"

Fast forward a couple of weeks. You walk into the theater and you see an armed, uniformed guard in the lobby. Feel safer? The Aurora shooter came in the back door. How many guards do you think it would take to adequately guard every movie theater, mall and stadium in the country against that kind of intrusion?

And if you could get enough guys, they aren't working for minimum wage, so that would get added to the cost of your movie ticket, the price of which already has many people balking and seeking out different forms of entertainment.

Answer me honestly, the next time you go to the movies, as you enter the theater, will you be noting where the exits are a little more carefully than before? The first gunshot that explodes on the screen, as the character looks around to see where it came from, how many in the audience will be looking around to see where it came from, too? Anyone ever get up during a movie to go to the concession stand, answer a phone, or hit the head? Which gets more of your attention now: the movie, or weak bladder guy?

Even though the shooting in a Colorado theater was an aberration, and might never happen again, how many people do you think will feel a little uneasy over sitting in a dark room with that many strangers? How many do you think will want to opt for a DVD and a dead bolt on their own front door instead?

Oh, and if I haven't totally soured your next movie going experience yet, one last thought:

If they do hired armed security to patrol inside the theater? The Aurora shooter had a clean criminal record except for one speeding ticket. There's nothing that would have prevented him from getting the job himself.

Save the aisle seat for me!

Cross posted at LCR.