In the wake of the horrific gun shooting massacre in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater last July in which a former graduate student named James E. Holmes allegedly killed 12 people and wounded 58 others, there was virtually no serious national discussion about gun control, despite the best efforts of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
There was certainly no discussion in Washington D.C. Some legislators discussed measures such as limiting the number of high-capacity gun magazines after their colleague, Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, was shot and nearly killed at a supermarket where she was meeting with constituents a year and a half earlier. Six people were killed and 13 others wounded in that incident near Tucson.
That lack of substantial talk, much less any legislative remedies, has put gun-control advocates in a serious funk, wondering how the issue has lost so much salience with the powers that be, as well as the majority of the public. The issue was never discussed during this year's presidential campaign, and really never has been since 2000, when it was considered to be one of many factors that led Al Gore to lose his home state of Tennessee.
But what to do when the next Aurora, or Columbine or Virginia Tech occurs? After Aurora happened, just like after Virginia Tech, some gun-rights supporters were quoted as saying that if somebody in that crowd had a gun in their possession, there could have been a lot less bloodshed. They argue that laws should be liberalized so more people could have the capacity to carry firearms.
That idea gets perhaps its most serious advocacy in the pages of the December issue of The Atlantic, with national corresponded Jeffrey Goldberg's piece, "The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)."
This article appears in Nov 29 – Dec 5, 2012.