Commentary on Aurora's Dark Night

(David Fitzsimmons) 

As it happens, I'm in Denver, where I just did two journalism workshops at the Post for young writers, one which is an annual event for kids who want to learn about reporting, photography, etc., and the second a more focused training session for the young reporters (roughly 8 to 14) at the weekly publication I edit, which is part of the Post's educational services program.

The first of those sessions was Friday morning and, fortunately for us, the reporter who had volunteered to talk to the kids happened to be from sports, so he was there and did a brilliant session with them. But the photographer who was supposed to speak to them, and two other reporters who were going to help them with their reporting assignments, were understandably gone in the scramble of coverage from the shootings the night before.

So the kids got an unexpected lesson in the way reporters have to be flexible, how you can plan to interview a forester about pine beetle infestation and instead suddenly find yourself on the scene of an event like this one. 

The coverage here has been wall-to-wall, and has varied greatly from incisive to repetitive as anyone with any involvement or contact or proximity to the event or the (alleged) shooter has received their 15 minutes quite literally.

The advantage of being a reporter, however, is that -- depending, of course, on the directives of your editor -- you have the ability to retain your role as "reporter" rather than "instant analyst," and those who wander off into Geraldo Rivera land have only themselves to blame.

For cartoonists, the need for quick commentary trumps the need for facts to emerge, and an event of this magnitude can't be ignored, as a quick trip to Cagle.com shows. 

Which is to say, when Andy Griffith died, there was no particular need for 5,000 cartoons showing Sheriff Taylor walking away with a fishing rod on his shoulder. Griffith was popular, certainly, but his death didn't stop the nation and did not require any commentary at all, much less a flood of predictable Pearly Gaters.

But cartoonists were under a great deal more pressure to say something this time, and to say it quickly, and so we got the predictable, ridiculous "weeping Batman" cartoons, as well as a couple that inexplicably declared that the local police were the "real" heroes. (Their response time was excellent and they did help tamp down the panic, but that's not what "hero" used to mean.)

A newspaper can't simply print a cartoon about Mitt Romney's dog carrier at a moment like this, however, and you do have to say something. Mike Keefe, who recently took a buyout from the Post but remains in the area as a freelancer, simply acknowledged the event without direct commentary. 

This may be the wisest approach, and Keefe has too much class to use "weeping Batman" as the way to do it.

Some cartoonists went after the gun culture, which is well within the realm of fair commentary, but there's an element here that must be taken into account, which is that the preliminary information does not suggest any reason the shooter should not have been allowed guns under current law. He had no criminal record, apparently had no record of mental illness treatment, was of age and seems to have prepared enough in advance to satisfy any waiting period requirements. 

So, while I like Steve Breen's cartoon, I'm not sure it applies as directly as it might have:

That is, the gun culture is central to the problem, but we've seen much more egregious tragedies where access to firearms should have been harder. 

In this case, I prefer Bill Day's comment on the pervasiveness of guns overall:

But I still think Fitzsimmons had the best commentary with an updated cartoon from five years ago, because it's not just "here we go again" in terms of "here's another shooting," but "here we go again" in terms of the full and predictable cycle. Including the ability to make a few small changes and still be spot on.

I don't take it as cynical fatalism, because, after all, he is, like the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come, only showing the shades of what may be, not what will be.

I don't believe we are apt to change our ways as well as Scrooge did, and I do not foresee anything coming from this. But I think Fitzsimmons is on safer ground in his generalized comment than anyone attempting instant analysis on this particular incident.

And, in the realm of old cartoons that I wish no longer applied, my own take on instant analysis was summed up in a cartoon Ruben Bolling did in 1999, a few months after Columbine and in the wake of a few other school shootings. I just wish it weren't so relevant a dozen years later.

(And having just added that link to his blog, I realize I didn't have to search my own archives for this cartoon after all, since he has reposted it himself.)

 

Comments

[Dann]

Sorry Mike. I gotta disagree.

This sort of thing isn't caused by a "gun culture". It is caused by people with significant mental health issues. If it was the result of a gun culture, then it would have been safer to live in Chicago in the last six months or so than in a Denver theater recently.

But Chicago has has many more deaths. They just occurred one or two or three at a time.

And since they occurred in an area that is blatantly hostile to gun rights, those deaths don't fit the narrative for national media attention.

Actually, a "gun culture" would have saved lives in that theater as a few properly/legally armed citizens could have put a stop to the whole thing. Or at least given everyone else time to escape.

Regards,
Dann

[Mike Peterson]

I see no way that having a bunch of Walter Mittys turn this into a shootout in a dark room could possibly have done anything but boost the body count, Dann. It would have taken having the right person in the right position to cut off the carnage, and if you want to wish for a guy with a gun to be that person, I'll counter with an unarmed guy who happened to be positioned to make the tackle -- and my guy would have been able to move faster.

But we don't have to place imaginary heroes in the theater to know that the whole concept of Wyatt Earp solutions is a fantasy. The Second Amendment, like the Third, is based on the Founding Father's experience under England's standing army, and, just as the Third Amendment became irrelevant as history unfolded, the romantic notion of a "well-regulated militia" was proven foolish in the War of 1812. (Here's the link to my previous discussion of that historical fact: http://www.weeklystorybook.com/comic_strip_of_the_daycom/2012/02/the-other-side-of-judicial-activism.html)

I realize that there are few people who willingly defend both the First and Second amendments and that Madison et al anticipated neither banana clips or the Internet in their deliberations. But they were very specific in saying that the reason to keep gun laws in the hands of the states was because of their belief in the "well-regulated militia," and I find it troubling that those conservatives who harp on the need to seek the intentions of the Founding Fathers are the same who cheer the Court for declaring the "well-regulated militia" clause irrelevant, and are generally also those who appeal state gun laws to the Court while, at the same time, insisting on the supremacy of states' rights in other matters.

In any case, my imaginary unarmed hero tackled the gunman while your gun-totin' hero was still struggling to get his pistol out of his pocket while everyone was jostling him and running in the dark. Meanwhile, another of your imaginary gun-totin' heroes saw the first GTH raise his pistol, assumed in the chaos that he was the gunman, and shot him dead.

[Dann]

Mike,

There is nothing imaginary about individuals stopping crime with a personally owned firearm. It happens all the time. In fact, a couple of the school/university shootings over the last decade were halted by people that had firearms nearby. (Typically in their car.)

I think your non-imaginary "imaginary tackler" points to the real problem. As a society, we are unwilling to defend ourselves and to defend others. A couple well placed individuals with the will to take on an armed gunman could have done a world of good as well.

That mentality comes part and parcel with the willingness to undergo multiple government reviews and fill out lots of government paperwork to be able to purchase and eventually carry a concealed weapon.

My non-mythical "mythical gunmen" demonstrate their willingness to take action. As I say, it happens all the time.

Regards,
Dann

[Dave from Phila]

I really am curious Dann. Do you really have no problem with a citizen purchasing an automatic rifle that shoots 100 bullets in a brief period of time without stopping? Do you really have no problem with a citizen purchasing 6000 rounds of ammunition in a short period of time? It is the all or nothing part of the gun control debate that is the most disturbing to me.

[Mike Peterson]

There have been bank robberies solved by the fact that the robber inadvertently left his wallet or some form of ID at the scene. I do not believe this has occurred at such a statistically significant rate that a detective should routinely ask, "Where did he leave his drivers license?" or rely on it as a likely clue.

Similarly, I do not believe that making guns easier to obtain for both crackpots and vigilantes (Venn diagram, anyone?) is going to alter the statistical insignificance of the Wyatt Earp solution.

Nor should the Wyatt Earp solution be endorsed without taking into consideration the mortality rate of Earp brothers, which was decidedly not statistically insignificant.

[Owen]

I remember laughing at the absurdity when it first aired.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM

[Dave from Phila]

Owen - that is hilarious. Thank you!

[Dann]

@Dave, The primary problem here is that no one purchased an automatic rifle. He purchased a semi-automatic rifle that contains technology that is identical to that found in some (not all) modern hunting rifles.

The 100 rounds number is a pie in the sky number that might be theoretically possible. The specs on the rifle are actually 45-60 rounds per minute as a semi-automatic with sustained (i.e. won't burn up the barrel in a couple minutes) rates of 10-12 rounds per minute. And to hit the 45-60 round per minute rate, you pretty much have to toss accuracy out the window. You also toast the barrel in a couple minutes due to overheating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

The military version of the same weapon is capable of doing over 700 rounds a minute in a full automatic mode. But that version wasn't present in the theater.

Purchasing 6000 rounds at one time doesn't bother me. A reasonably active shooter will burn through that many rounds in a year. Buying in volume is a reasonable way to cut range costs.

As I understand it, this guy did is buying in smaller quantities. I'm not sure how you prevent the accumulation of that many rounds via smaller purchases without running afoul of registration issues.

The bottom line for me is that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens saves far more lives each year than are taken by guns in the hands of criminals. Every unbiased study of the issue has confirmed that as fact, not opinion.

B/R,
Dann