What to do with this Theater?

What to do with the Aurora, Century 16 Movie Theater, where James Holmes killed 12 people and injured over fifty others? Many people suggest that the auditorium’s owners shut it down out of respect for those who lost their lives inside it. Some feel that the owners should shut down the entire theater, not just that specific auditorium. Still others express the opinion that the theater’s owners ought to transform it into a memorial. While I understand these points of view, and I can only imagine how long it will take for anyone to comfortably sit before that haunted, big screen, I don’t believe we should close it to the public.

Why do people spend ten-to-twenty dollars per person to go to the theater when they could split a buck renting a movie out of a Redbox machine? Theaters offer amazing, human opportunities. They provide stages for reconnecting with friends and family. They are places where couples hold hands or perhaps share their first kiss.

Keep the theater open. Allow wonderful events to transpire there once again. The Aurora theater ought not to close on such a sad, monstrous note as Holmes’s rampage.

In the aftermath of destruction, we must rebuild and continue moving forward. Evil people (and there’s just no better word for them) wish to derail us from our missions to entertain, love, and unite with each other. We mustn’t allow these pitiable (yes, pitiable) monsters their victories.

Should there be a memorial honoring those who died during Holmes’s killing spree? There are. One victim, Jonathan Blunk, served as a seaman with the United States Navy. He also served the civilian world as a certified firefighter and emergency medical technician. During the horrific shooting, he threw himself in front of his friend, Jansen Young, shielding her from the gunman’s bullets. The lives he saved, those are his memorials.

Another victim, Matt McQuinn dove in front of his girlfriend during the shooting. He protected both her and her brother. They are Matt’s memorial.

The victims deserve commemoration for all the positive influences generated during their lives. James Holmes does not deserve commemoration for having concluded them, for having cut short his victims’ accomplishments.

Would it prove tasteless of me to turn this tragedy into a political statement? At such heavy risk, I discovered myself compelled. You see, I have grown shocked by the quantity of people who blame gun control laws for Holmes’s massacre. Let me be clear: I am not discussing the argument that loose gun control laws allowed Holmes to obtain his arsenal (a blog for another day, perhaps). I am discussing the argument that blame rests with gun restrictions.

The debate goes something like this: “Had everyone in that theater possessed a firearm, this tragedy would never have happened. Holmes could never have killed so many people before someone else in the theater had shot him. With that in mind, Holmes would have never attempted his murders.”

Like most easy answers, this is simply wrong. I assure you that in a packed, panicked, dark theater, filling with teargas, additional firearms will not remedy the situation. The belief that violent criminals are deterred by armed victims holds less water than misguided (but usually well intended) logic suggests. Sure, criminals prefer unarmed victims, but a person looking to steal your wallet hasn’t a clue beforehand whether or not you’re packing heat.

Shooters come in two groups. The desperate. The bloodthirsty.

Desperate criminals want to separate you from your money any way they can. These people might be starving, dying for a drug fix, or perhaps owe money to other criminals. The point is, they’re desperate. To them, death proves more desirable than failure. These types of attackers will face any threat to accomplish their goals. They will not say to themselves, “I had better not try to mug someone, because that someone might have a gun.” A possible firearm is a threat already accepted.

The bloodthirsty do not expect to walk into a school, kill several people, and return to normal life. How many shootings end with “Before he turned the gun on himself” or “Before surrendering to the police”? These killers don’t expect to escape their crimes. Few even expect (or want) to survive them. The possibility of an armed victim means little to such irrational people.

Even if Holmes had known that every person in that theater possessed a gun, he wouldn’t have abandoned his mission and gone on to live a normal, productive life. Thirsting for a larger body count and a higher concentration of chaos, he might’ve welcomed such variables (he would’ve been the only one wearing body armor, after all). He entered the theater knowing his life would soon end, in one sense or another. That didn’t stop him.

Fear remains the prized weapon of victimizers. If I purchase an alarm system, train a guard dog, sleep with a gun under my pillow, live under a security camera, and surrender my privacy to the police, then it matters little whether my intruder ever materializes or not. That criminal, real or imaginary, has already instilled in me fear powerful enough to interrupt and lessen the quality of my life.

Living in fear is not living. Feeling naked without a firearm is not daring.