A tragedy struck our nation during the mass shooting at the midnight screening of “The Dark Knight Rises” in Aurora, Colo., on July 20.

In response to the shooting, some call for new limits on our freedoms as a preventive measure. They are making the act political. Some politicians and media outlets suggest our right to bear arms invited the killing, and limiting this right would limit future killing.

Others suggest we should consider self-censoring our expression based on the notion that violent media creates violent people. Examples of politicians calling for limits on arms ownership include Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and President Barack Obama.

Lautenberg supports a ban on the sale of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. He said, “We have to face the reality that these types of tragedies will continue to occur unless we do something about our nation’s lax gun laws.”
Obama tells us that assault rifles “belong on the battlefield.”
Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein said, “If we don’t get gun control laws in this country, we are full of beans.” Regarding the self-censorship of expression, Weinstein said “we should sit down the Marty Scorseses, the Quentin Tarantinos and hopefully all of us who deal in violence in movies – and discuss our role in” real world violence.

Lorenza Muñoz from The Daily Beast writes, “Some in Hollywood are saying it is time to take a look within — and better understand their role in creating the images of violence that permeate popular culture.”
Instead of implicating the defendant in his crime, these politicians and media figures have blamed the attack on our rights to free expression and to own assault weapons. Despite the views of these public figures, we should not censor ourselves and — in effect — admit collective responsibility for the actions of one killer.

Further, we should not limit our right to bear arms. Law-abiding citizens should not be disarmed in an attempt to disarm criminals who do not follow the law.

In other words, we should run background checks on those who buy firearms, which would prevent their legal sale to convicted criminals. But we should not limit the purchases of those who pass the background checks.

Suppose we take the suggestions of Lautenberg and Obama: making magazines more than 10 rounds illegal and limiting access to assault rifles. We would be emulating Norway by opting for stricter gun control.

However, last year, a Norwegian killed more than 70 people in Norway despite strict Norwegian firearm regulations. Rifle magazines more than three rounds are illegal in Norway, yet the shooter had 10 30-round rifle magazines.

The Norwegian shooter imported these magazines from the United States, where they are legal in some places. In abstract terms, one can acquire illegal items by importing them from other countries, and this is what happened in Norway.

Hence, as long as 30-round magazines exist somewhere in the world, making them illegal in the United States will not guarantee their absence from the hands of people seeking to commit mass murder here.


Michael Stikkel is a junior computer engineering major. His column appears online weekly. He can be reached at mcstikke@syr.edu.

Published on August 5, 2012 at 2:43 pm