Guns don’t kill people, people kill people
But guns certainly make it easier.
Like most people living Asia, I woke up to the morning news and the first RSS feed I read was on the Virginia Tech shooting, the worst of its kind in American history. I think it’s about time some people get it through their thick skulls that private ownership of guns is a stupid thing. I am disturbed that any emotionally unstable teen can pick up a gun from his father’s locker and kill. I am disgusted that Republican politicians like Mitt Romney have to suck up to the NRA to please the conservative voters. I think the Second Amendment is a good idea badly conveyed and horribly misinterpreted.
Read on for why.
The founding fathers assumed that power corrupts and a government always requires checks and balances to remain true to the people’s interest. For that purpose, the people must have the ability to rise against an oppressive government should the need arise and thus the need for private ownership of guns. This might have been effective two hundred years ago when everyone used wooden musket guns and it didn’t take a lot of effort to burn down the White House, but today it is absurd to think that any private militia can have the firepower to match the US military’s cutting-edge technology and astronomical budget. Does anyone seriously believe that keeping a pistol by your bedside will help you if someone decided to turn America into a theocratic dictatorship? Unless you are Laura Bush, the answer is definitely “no”.
And that is exactly why no other functional democracies in the world relies on private gun ownership as a safeguard against a corrupted government. Instead they rely on dividing the power among different branches of the government and on an educated and well-informed population. If the day comes when it becomes necessary for the people to overthrow the government by force, then democracy has already failed. Are advocates of gun ownership saying that democracy in America is so screwed up and unreliable that such an arrangement is really called for, in spite of the innumerable negative effects it has on society? What a huge insult to the system that is the pride of so many Americans.
Not only does private gun ownership contribute absolutely nothing to in today’s democracies, it brings about a boatload of otherwise avoidable social problems. Some people feel unsafe without a gun for self defence because they would otherwise stand no chance against an armed criminal. But the irony is that the criminal is armed only because he too is allowed to possess firearms under the same set of laws. These gun right advocates claim that if gun control laws are passed, then honest citizens will be robbed of their right to self defence while the criminals continue to arm themselves with black market guns. But they are wrong. With proper law enforcement, criminals will have access to less guns than before and ultimately the number of gun-related violent crimes will drop. It is selfish for people to keep guns to protect themselves at the expense of public safety because it creates a harmful environment where guns are more easily obtainable.
Also, it is important to note that carrying a gun does not necessarily mean you are safer. If an armed man robs me, I will give up my valuables and stand a good chance of walking away from the encounter alive, because the goal of the robber is money and generally it is wiser to avoid killing and causing unnecessary trouble. On the other hand, if I respond by pulling out a gun, the situation changes and one of two things happen: I shoot him or he shoots me. Either way, someone will die.
Guns make killing all to easy. You can be walking home from work and end up getting shot by a drunk and bored teenager, or attending lessons when your classmate who just got dumped by his girlfriend pulls out a gun and shoot you. The people committing these murders are not members of organized criminal syndicates, they are emotionally unstable stupid teenagers who have an all-too-easy access to legally-purchased guns. Maybe mafia mobsters will continue to have access to black market guns even after gun control laws are passed, but at least these idiots will not. If the laws are enforced by a competent police force, and yet a criminal manages to obtain a gun illegally without getting caught, then clearly he possesses a higher level of intelligence and self discipline than the Columbine shooters.
And without guns, what will crazy nut jobs do in the spur of the moment when caught in a heated argument that they just can’t win with words alone? The worst they can do is to stab the other party with a knife. If they can even figure out how. Maybe they will succeed killing one person, but you can bet that it will not be 32 people. In a society that allows private gun ownership, the sanctity of life is cheapened to a trigger squeeze.
Knives, baseball bats, metal rods, golf clubs, lengths of rope, glass shards, rocks and, yes, even guns can kill people. The difference is that guns do it too well to be allowed in the hands of the untrained and undisciplined masses. Police officers and soldiers are duty bound and professionally responsible for their actions, it’s what they are trained to do. The average emo teenager on LJ is neither. I’m not saying that it is impossible for a trained soldier to loss his cool and commit murder, but I think it’s obvious which one is more likely to cause the next record-breaking campus shooting.
…But I guess freedom and liberty and whatnot is more important than going to school without having to pass through metal detectors. Whenever will some people learn to see what is true freedom?
stun guns for non lethal self defense. Stun guns are an inexpensive and effective means to protect yourself. Legal almost everywhere.
April 17th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
As a buddy put it best:
“Virginia Tech is a “gun-free zone”, but I guess no one told the guy who killed 30+ people that. It’s too bad that one of those teachers or students wasn’t allowed to carry on campus so that less than 30 people would be assuming room temperature.”
April 17th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Hoo boy. If there is one thing I learnt as a moderator on an American forum, it is that the issue of gun-ownership is like “religion”. Things can get pretty fanatical on both sides of the issue.
Here’s hoping that the discussion here will remain civil.
Cheers.
April 17th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
@Makyz:
Shouldn’t the argument be “.. too bad it’s legal to carry guns so that the gunman was able to obtain one in the first place” ?
April 17th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
well, if you want to get techincal, I do agree with banning of guns, but also keep in mind people can kill people with basically anything from knives to your own hands. Sadly, it’ll never be resolved >_
April 17th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Don’t worry next election I’m voting for a democrat XP
April 17th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Eh, thing is, in other countries where gun ownership is common things like this rarely happen, and in some countires where gun ownership is banned these things still occasionally occur anyway. While I don’t think introducing some gun control is a bad idea as such, it seems clear that it’s not the real source of the problem.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
CSmith: yes, people will still kill whether they have guns or not, but it sure is harder to kill 30+ people at one crack without guns. Unless, of course, you have a Death Note. ^_~
Whoa, it’s kinda ironic to see an “Antique Weapons Auctions” ad by Google here…
April 17th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
The guns the guy used were illegally purchased. The serial numbers had even been filed off. He couldn’t have legally obtained one in the first place, given that he was a foreign national.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
It’s a shame none of the professors were carrying a gun.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
If guns weren’t legally available in the first place, then illegal guns would be far fewer.
It’s a shame guns are allowed in the US in the first place, otherwise he would have just rampaged through the school with a butcher knife, and some football player probably would have tackled him before he got to his 5th victim.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
It’s really a sad shame that this incident occurred, and since I’m nowhere near versed in how gun legislation works, I’m not going to touch that issue.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
I read almost all 1000 comments on Digg the moment this story broke. While some were condolence messsages, the majority were pushing either antigun or pro-gun agendas.
The former can be summarised into, “Guns are a crime amplifier”.
The latter is, “We need guns to defend ourselves from other guns.”
Obviously the people who believe in the latter are 1000% percent American. They gained their country through an armed revolution, and believe that they need to be empowered enough to overthrow their government should it go astray. As if Bush isn’t astray enough. Also, they have never experienced a gun-free society and hence have the mistaken notion that guns are like air, and everywhere. They think that banning guns will make the honest citizen unable to defend themselves while the bad guys can still get guns easily. They insist that violent crimes rates in other countries are rising because they have banned guns. They think that the Va-tech shooting will have been stopped if the students all had been carrying a concealed pistol.
Unfortunately, there is a reason why America has the highest rate of gun crime and it is no doubt their sheer availability. Unfortunately, their culture is so steeped in violence that it is now not possible to remedy by only banning guns. Many an American, from the teens to the oldies, have the wrong mindset. The only similar culture that comes to mind are the Iraqi and Afghans…. says a lot doesn’t it.
If these Americans actually bother to find out more about the rest of the world, they’ll realise the folly of their ways.
I’m only talking about this issue because of the above article. I’m actually more interested in finding out more about the actual incident. I read the account of how the engineering Prof sacrificed his life to save his students and that was really sad.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
I agree much with DM on this, thus why am I commenting? Commenting online has pretty much became an affair where stands must be drawn with vitiriol spilling everywhere.
Back to this issue, sadly to say most of the immediate circumstances surrounding the Virginia Tech shooting will be lost in the waves of reaction. The state of events in this debate has been so charged that everything is used to support their stand despite people not knowing what’s being used.
The Second Amendment that allows everyone to have the right of protecting themselves is a noble act, and it was borne out of necessity at that time. During that period, danger was much apparent and readily identified thus it was possible for measures to be taken against them. The political nature of it that DM mentioned was recognised as well, however I see that the main onus behind it was really self-preservation during that period. However, we are facing with phantoms of danger, terrorism and rogue shooters like the Columbine teenagers. Are we that able to defend ourselves against such threats? Even with firearms? It would be trite to say that if we are to remove ready access of firearms, we would be in danger from those who already have it.
To quote Mahatma Gandhi, an eye for an eye leaves the world blind. Saying that we would need to arm ourselves with firearms against people who have guns to start with is a knee-jerk reaction. If we have to arm ourselves all the time against supposed rogue elements in the society, what’s the need of the police and the security agencies? In this point of time, protection need not be furnished by the individual, this protection can be accorded by the police and such. Naturally, the question of what this safeguard fails will arise. If there are less people with guns, the less the ordinary people are empowered in the event that they go rogue. The amount of power that guns wield is too great for everyone to hold it. Great power comes with great responsibility.
And if democracy requires everyone to live in fear and having restrictions to protect the very cornerstones of freedom. How’s different is that from being in a cage?
April 17th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
People are too selfish and refuse to see the bigger picture. If everyone carried a gun to protect himself, the entire society would turn into a much more dangerous place. Sure, at that particular incident, less people might have died if someone had stopped the killer with a gun. But ultimately such a way of thinking will cause more harm to society as a whole. Vigilante justice is a dangerous thing.
Humans are prone to errors and impulsive actions. Put enough guns into the hands of enough people, and eventually some of them will do stupid things.
You might think that you are just helping to keep you and your family safe, but in reality private ownership of guns makes society a lot more chaotic and unpredictable than necessary, making it harder for trained professional police officers to do their work.
We give up a lot of things in exchange for law and order. I don’t see why the right to bear arms cannot be one of them.
Freedom is an illusion when you live in uncertainty and fear.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Well, i saw the headings on the first page of the Straits Times this morn. It’s a pretty piece of news to start the day. Some idiotic gunner just has to take his frustration out on his peers coz of his ‘circumstances’.
Bright young lives wasted just like that… :(
April 17th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
> they have never experienced a gun-free society and hence have the mistaken notion that guns are like air, and everywhere.
LOL.
At any rate, it turns out the guy actually was a green card holder, and as a legal resident alien, wouldn’t he have had the same right to purchase guns?
As for the disproportionately large number of comments regarding gun rights vs those offering condolences, my guess is that everyone agrees that it was a tragic incident and can grieve privately, but can’t resist arguing publicly about a polarising issue such as gun rights.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:05 am
I remember Michael Moore making a similar argument against gun ownership in his movie Bowling for Columbine. He recalled a set of facts; that American had an uncomparably high rate of homicides. This was contrasted against other countries which also had legalized gun ownership, countries which had a violent culture or both. In any case America wins by at least an order of magnitude; usually two orders of magnitudes. When compared to Asia where legal gun ownership is a rarity, its typically three orders of magnitude.
In other words its not a violent culture or legalized gun-ownership that’s the problem. Its something endemic to the Americans in particular. Its easy to theorize what that may be but hard to prove.
Personally I think legalized civilian ownership of firearms is insane but then again as a Singaporean I’ve never had to worry about being shot on the street. Just about every male Singaporean above 18 knows how to handle rifles, those who were officers are also usually trained in pistols. Despite this, possessing ammunition is already a capital offense let alone a firearm.
Pro-gun activists have a point. There are already so many firearms owned by so many people that it may be pointless to enforce gun-laws now. The borders of the US are vast and porous. However their argument is ultimately a circular one. People need guns to defend them from guns because people have guns. If taken as a reductio ad absurdum, that you need BIGGER guns to protect you since the “bad guys” have bigger guns, then everyone would not be content until they ride their own Abrams or a Gundam (preferably Strike Freedom). After all, how is a six shot revolver going to help you when the enemy packs a semi-automatic or a full-automatic? These were the weapons of choice at Columbine High School after all. Automatic weapons with 30 round clips in the hands of the “Trenchcoat Mafia”.
In this particular case, the shooter used illegally acquired firearms. However its relatively easy to obtain such items since a citizen can legally buy a few pistols and then sell them on the black market. Would 32 people had died if everyone on campus packed a Desert Eagle or a Beretta? Maybe not. By the time the shooter got through his first classroom, the one next door would have had enough firepower trained on the doorway to make him spring more leaks than the Titanic. Would the frequency of such incidents also increase? This is a chilling thought. Unhinged people are everywhere but this one went through the effort of purchasing two blackmarket pistols and plenty of ammunition. If all he needed to do when he snapped was to reach under his desk…..
Neither side will be willing to budge so it boils down to a simple, personal question. Which of these would engender your own peace of mind? That everybody packs a gun or nobody (save the armed forces and law enforcement) packs a gun?
April 18th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Most people in those message boards(Digg) only think of themselves. I mean if people are allowed to own guns, imagining in a small classroom where there are about 30-40 students(or less), and each and everyone one of them have guns, would anyone feel safe? I think not. Imagine an ordinary fight among people, you could imagine instead of using their fist they would be using their guns. Soon after that, person threatens you = reason to kill him/her.
The problem with America is that they have too many guns. Putting more guns in public hands is not the solution.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:19 am
They should just make every bullet cost 100000 dollars each
April 18th, 2007 at 12:36 am
quoting from Mkyz: “Virginia Tech is a “gun-free zone”, but I guess no one told the guy who killed 30+ people that.”
well, he’s Korean..so…he cant understand..=.=..
well, i personally think that we as guys coming out to society to either work or study, its better to open your eyes BIG when making friends.
Today, i read an article from a Chinese book on how to improve your life morally, it states that when we make friends, try to know if that friend can teach you good, such as, doing good deeds and that he or she will be able to help you improve in terms of moral and ethics, which is what the whole world is lacking right now. As education gets higher, people tend to forget about the basics of being a human being. They start going after the things that are physical, and forget that there’s something spiritual.
But on the other, if the friend you are about to make encourages to do bad things, such as smoking, drinking and theft, dump him. What will happen if you make friends with him is that, 1) you start to be like him. You lose everything you once have. Your family, your friends, your freedom. 2) You get into jail. 3) if he’s out to con money from you, you will be begging on the streets soon(don’t expect returns).
As for people finding their soul mates, do what good couples do. Before getting engaged, look at his negative points instead of the good. Think whether he is a good mate for the rest of your life. This way, when finally you guys are ready to have a family, do the opposite. Look at his good trades and cover an eye on the bad. This way, you get happy family.
You might be thinking,”How does the above 3 paragraphs relate to murders and guns?” Well, simple. Its quite obvious that our gunman got into something wrong with love. And instead of doing the rational thing at the point, he did the opposite. I mean, he could cool it off, but instead, heat it up till the point he burns himself, to death.
As for selling of guns, “A good king knows what’s good or bad for his people.” If a leader of the country truly wishes Best for his people, he shouldn’t bring in the bad boys. If he did, cleaning up the mess the bad boys did after that would be hard. For eg, currently Singapore is having this anti-smoking plan, whereby they
show a lady with lips that is rotting, talking on television about the negative effects of smoking for 1 min. Imagine you are eating dinner, OMG!!, you saw that commercial, could you eat? Its the Cleanup the Government have to do to encourage people from smoking..
Overall, be careful when making friends. Night..
April 18th, 2007 at 12:40 am
When I saw this, it struck me how similar I was to this man. I guess I am a loner too. I only had 2 friends in college and they were my roommates.
For a long time now, I’ve fought my own depression. Not for my sake, as it takes alot of mental energy to stop myself. But for the sake of those around me. However, not everyone has the strength to fight it and even I still break down Nsometimes. I know many of you will say to just “get help”, but how many are truly supportive of someone who hates himself? The internet has already shown its lack of compassion on the subject. Compare how many forums you can find on suicide action versus suicide prevention. Those who try to talk about it are labelled “emo” and mostly ignored. Many are ostracized for being “weird” or different in some way and they feel alone no matter where they are. This isn’t something that “thinking happy thoughts” can solve.
So many are compassionate when someone goes out and kills a bunch of people. You know his name, you hate him. But if he walked out into the woods and shot himself, would you even know? Would you even care, even if you did find out? So, if you were going to kill yourself, finally going over the edge, what incentive is there to take only yourself? No one cares.
I understand that grabbing a gun and gunning down your fellow classmates isn’t a solution of any kind. But I know I’ve thought about doing it in those times where you wish the world was more accepting of you.
I feel sorry for those killed by him and for him. Society failed all of you.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:56 am
This is the least vitriolic statement of these views I’ve read since this event occurred. I appreciate that.
I’d first like to point out that two of the most peaceful countries in the world have near 100% household firearm ownership: Switzerland and Finland. Furthermore, people in many countries with the strictist firearm law enforcement laws on the planet STILL live in fear of being shot by criminals with guns (Cuba, for instance). In fact, in the United States it used to be quite common in many places for most every boy to carry his rifle to school with him, yet school shootings didn’t seem to occur.
Guns do make it easy to kill. It’s a very sad fact. In practical terms, though, a gun is used to provide the REAL danger: Unequal power. Evil people try to exert strength to rule over those who are weaker than them. People arm themselves to make themselves stronger. It is quite possible to kill large numbers of people without a firearm. A man with a knife can do it through fear (and it has been done before–and the Virginia Tech shootings, being frequently at close range where people COULD have fought back, is quite similar). A man with a bomb can do it through planning.
There is something that makes the gun unique in its power, though: Any person who arms themselves with a gun is pretty well equal to any other person who arms themselves with a gun. Training and various aspects of a gun can make a difference, but the gap is much smaller. With any other weapon, be it fists, rocks, swords, or knives, a person who is larger, stronger, or even merely more aggressive has a tremendous advantage. With a gun, a wheelchair-bound woman can stand against a tremendously large man.
There are MILLIONS of people licensed to carry concealed weapons in the United States. As a group, they have criminal records cleaner than the collective of the police forces in the country. It would only have taken ONE of them to stop the murders yesterday, but the carry of weapons is prohibited on the Virginia Tech University campus. In fact, just last year the Virginia legislature did not pass bill to stop the campus from being able to ban the concealed carrying of firearms by those who are properly licensed. The young man knew very well that every one there would be unarmed, and so he knew that he would carry unequal power for that time.
Criminals do what they do because they feel they can get away with what they plan.
The private ownership and use of arms does protect democracy from outside forces and inside forces, even today. We who are fortunate enough to live in peaceful countries don’t see it every day, but it is true. Even in the United States, though, elections have been kept in order by ordinary, armed citizens standing against corrupt officials.
It’s quite possible for a collection of armed citizens to stand against corrupt government. It’s true that a small, concentrated group of people with rifles cannot stand against the might of tanks and bombs. At the local level, however, it is a far more even fight, and even at the national level it is possible for large numbers to stand up and fight in spread out areas. Although it is clear that the insurgents fighting in Iraq are not the people who should win, nor will they likely win, they are a good modern example of how people with poor and/or no training and small arms can stand up to the full might of the strongest military in the world.
The practical use of guns for the preservation of life against the dangers of nature outside of the scope of modern cities is relevant, but I don’t think is best brought into this discussion, except perhaps to point out that guns have uses other than killing people.
It’s the culture inside the US that needs to be fixed. As mentioned, gun ownership in particular other places doesn’t present the same problems (and I can think of other places where gun ownership would be even worse). Much like Switzerland or Finland, the United States intended for its militia (which includes every citizen) to be properly trained. The nation has failed its people in this regard–terribly sad, because proper sufficient weapons training is neither a hard nor a long process (I can tell you from experience). Still, those who grow up in more rural areas see far, far less gun violence. They not only grow up handling guns and learning to respect the weapon, but also learn personal responsibility by having to fend for themselves and sanctity of human life, which hunting and/or butchering animals puts in perspective–when you are already in a culture that recognizes and values the sanctity of live, having to kill another living thing to sustain yourself certainly drives the point home–and they learn responsibility toward others, considering how they must actively work to protect others against the world around them.
We see the great, great majority of violence (gun violence included) rise from areas lacking training and experience with weapons and the perspective on their proper use (the urban United States) or in areas where the culture does not truly value the sanctity of life to override the desire for violence (parts of Africa and the middle east). The small amount of violence we see elsewhere is almost always in a case where some one was unable to defend themselves (which was the case at Virginia Tech).
So, yes, gruesome as it is, guns make it easier to kill. But whether there will always evil people who try to exert strength to do harm to others, and guns are the best defense against that. “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing,” and the best way to ensure that good men do nothing is to take away their ability to do something about evil.
The shooter at Virginia Tech obtained his guns illegally, but even if he could not have (which is unlikely in any location), he could have easily caused just as much death and destruction via another method. One good citizen with a gun, however, could have stopped him.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:01 am
I hope the shooter didn’t own any anime, or we’ll be treated to idiot newscasts saying things like “why cartoons from Japan could make YOUR kids into serial killers too–stay tuned for the 11:00 news!”
> If these Americans actually bother to find out more about the rest of the world, they’ll realise the folly of their ways.
Americans as a whole know very, very little about the rest of the world–I think the main reasons are (1) most Americans have have never set foot outside North America and (2) most Americans firmly believe the US is better than everywhere else, so why learn anything from other countries you believe are inferior? It’s an amazingly arrogant attitude, but I think it’s pretty widespread–and you can only learn when you realize other people may know something better than you do.
I can understand people wanting rifles for hunting, but why anyone needs handguns is beyond me. A rifle will do just fine for hunting or ‘home defense’ if you’re really that paranoid about burglars or something. Handguns have one purpose, killing people, but I don’t think either political party has the balls to do anything to restrict handguns to the cops, even if there’s a VA Tech every week.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:21 am
DarkMirage for president.
When I was living in America, my father’s friend was shot by a random gunner. The shooter was never found. I totally agree with your view that guns should be completely outlawed.
And the best part is that they constantly blame games and movies for influencing people to use guns.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:30 am
Well, they pushed all those blames to games and movies as it is definitely easier than to go thru all those paper work to ban guns followed by emptying all the gun shops and homes; i been playing such violent games for so long and I am not even inclined to kill someone( without regards to Singapore’s death penalty)
April 18th, 2007 at 1:38 am
The gunner is Korean. He must have mad skillz. But yeah, Mac with the extremely long comment, provides a good viewpoint from the US.
For every well-meaning civilian vigilante however, there spawns a lot more gun crime.
My solution would be capital punishment and a total gun ban. Anyone caught with a firearm besides the police or the army? 20 years in jail. An intentional discharge of firearm? Death penalty. Likewise for murder and rape and drug trafficking. I’m afraid the Americans need more stick than carrot now at this stage.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:58 am
tj han,
Yeah, I almost made my first phrase “I’ll make this short”, but that didn’t happen. I’ll be cross-posting that as an article in a more appropriate venue. It’s not just the US opinion, though. The US is just the most common example of this opinion.
I can certainly respect the desire to ban all guns, but measures very, very similar to yours are already in place in several countries where it is VERY strictly enforced, but hasn’t helped matters (I named Cuba as an example earlier because I’ve been there).
The rate of “good gun owners” to “bad gun owners” is actually very, very favorable, and only falls apart in certain areas where there are contributing factors other than guns–and, ironically, usually in places with low rates of legal ownership. Washington D.C. and the majority of Australia are good, if sad, examples of the enormous spike in crime rates (both with and without guns) after personal weapons were outlawed.
I really, REALLY hate that this had to be perpetrated by an Asian man, and an immigrant, no less. I fear a public backlash of prejudice against foreigners.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:06 am
There has been enough Eddie Izzard regurgitation and ad hoc idealism to satiate even the most emo high school debater.
It would do everyone better if DM just to stuck to Haruhi figures, mini skirts and cosplaying dancers.
*repost for insane typing skills*
April 18th, 2007 at 2:08 am
> …but today it is absurd to think that any private militia can have the firepower to match the US military’s cutting-edge technology and astronomical budget.
Dear DM,
Iraq.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:30 am
>>>Dear DM, Iraq.
Iraq has suicide bombers and lots of them. The idea of suicide bombing to an American is absurd, whether they’re subverting the government or not.
Anyways, I agree with DM, blah blah blah. This post also wins Longest Individual Replies award.
To tj_han: What the hell? It’s obvious that you don’t live or never have lived in the US. Despite what I would like to say, Americans aren’t as dumb most people (in other parts of the world) think they are. Yes, sure we have Bush. But he’s not exactly the epitome of American ingenuity, even though he’s the leader of our country… Anyways, I think there are enough dissenters about the Second Amendment spiel here that what you generalized is quite absurd.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:34 am
To avoid confusion, I’m Chinese, I was born in China, and I only recently became an American citizen like a month ago. I think I’ll go buy a gun the next time I stop at Wal-Mart.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:37 am
Latest headline: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6563565.stm
Yep, the rumors were true; he’s Asian. South Korean to be exact.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:16 am
yes..another reason why i believe the human species is a waste of everything in general (including me). yea my english teacher was talking about sth related to this like a few months ago. Similarly there was an emo dude in Montreal, Quebec who snapped and took a riffle and went to a university and started to spray and killed some people and he shot himself. The government should either ban the guns or charge the bullets for like 1000-2000$ per clip. Pretty sure that will make people think twice about using ammo. (btw im canadian if ppl didnt know)
April 18th, 2007 at 6:24 am
Who said guns were going to get banned at VA tech? A lot of people who graduate from my high school go to VA tech, so there was a lot of talk about it. Either last year or the year before, there was an escaped convict on the campus who shot the policeman pursuing him, and earlier this year there was a bomb threat of some sort. Seemingly the place has a history of this kind of stuff, but obviously banning guns on VA tech won’t stop the escaped convict or other external disturbances.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:07 am
There will be a spike in crime after a ban is put in place. But it will be temporary. Overtime, the number of guns on the streets will decrease simply because they are outlawed and harder to obtain. That is unless you are saying that the US police force is as incompetent and corrupted as third world countries like Cuba. I mean Iraq for instance clearly has no ability to enforce such a ban, so it makes sense for people to want to own guns to protect themselves. But why do Americans have so little faith in their authorities? When you don’t even give them the chance to do their job, obviously they end up doing it badly.
And yeah, I won’t want to go to a school where everyone carries a gun “just in case”. That’s the stupidest way to prevent such a thing from happening again.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:27 am
To Mac:
>>>I’d first like to point out that two of the most peaceful countries in the world have near 100% household firearm ownership: Switzerland and Finland.
I read over the gun ownership articles from Wikipedia of those two countries and from what they tell me, it seems that those two countries are modern day Sparta’s. My meaning is that their cultures are heavily military based where every able male is required/highly suggested of to go through military training. Obviously, this is different from America. If I were to use an hyperbolic analogy, I would say that the Swiss and the Finns are like karate masters who have gone through extensive meditation in some secret, snowy mountain top for years to be able to master the art of killing; which induces discipline and what not; and America would be like a ten year old who wished to a magic genie that he had the skillz of Bruce Lee. I think you even mentioned the how America failed in this respect.
>>>Much like Switzerland or Finland, the United States intended for its militia (which includes every citizen) to be properly trained.
To my knowledge, American becoming some sort of military state went about as far as the Anti-Federalists supporting states rights against the Federalists who wanted more federal power. The theory, according to the Anti-Federalists, was that each state having a militia would be able to protect itself from the federal government. Having a militia, however, did not mean seriously training every male body in military procedures. American law never advocated a military culture such as that of Sland and Fland. We never had laws where military service was required and all that spiel and we never wanted to.
>>>It’s quite possible for a collection of armed citizens to stand against corrupt government… At the local level, however, it is a far more even fight…
In what kind of situation would it be necessary (and right) for the local citizenry to overthrow the local government through the use of violence? I can’t think of one example in US history that’s ever happened or was it necessary. I can, however, think of a bunch of non-violence induced Civil Rights cases.
>>>The shooter at Virginia Tech obtained his guns illegally, but even if he could not have (which is unlikely in any location),
How easy is it get access to illegal guns? How easy would it be to get access to illegal guns if guns were banned?
>>>he could have easily caused just as much death and destruction via another method.
Like what? A bomb?
>>>One good citizen with a gun, however, could have stopped him.
Like DM already said: “People are too selfish and refuse to see the bigger picture. If everyone carried a gun to protect himself, the entire society would turn into a much more dangerous place.”
>>>Washington D.C. and the majority of Australia are good, if sad, examples of the enormous spike in crime rates (both with and without guns) after personal weapons were outlawed.
Do you have a link to articles or something? I find these facts most curious, though I’m highly afraid that it’s only post-hoc reasoning.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Chicken and egg issue.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Urgh I couldnt resist a troll commenti in my last post here.
In any case, since when did Switzerland and Finland have a military culture? If having compulsory military training for men equals military culture, Singapore must be Sparta too. I’m pretty sure the average intelligence level of every single country is the same, it is just differing culture and values.
Would enforcing a similar policy be useful for the US, considering the benefits it brought to the above mentioned 3 countries?
April 18th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”
Mentally unstable people who hadn’t learned a thing about restraint, consequences, and turning the other cheek.
I like to know what really happened, though. Is it out of revenge? Is revenge worth 30+ people dying at a school?
I agree that the 2nd Amendment is horribly exploited. But I’d like to see the return of armed militia here in the US. ACTUAL, SANE, NON-RELIGIOUS militia.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I like how people like debating gun control like it will actually stop people from killing each other. Currently, its easier for me to make a bomb out of chemicals in my home than to go out and buy a gun. If he simply wanted to kill people, there are even easier ways to go about it than loading yourself with several rounds of ammo and illegal handguns. But obviously, this guy wanted to kill *himself* too. Does taking away his gun stop him from killing himself?
But apparently, noone wants to bother thinking about why he did it. “Oh, he was a loner, that explains everything.” We’ve all accepted that people just snap and there’s nothing we can do about that. And snapping is ok, as long as you only kill yourself. Sanctity of life, my ass.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
It doesn’t matter why he did it. People will always snap for one reason or another no matter what you or society as a whole do. No country is free of suicides and murders. The important thing is to minimize the damages when it happens and easily obtainable guns are not helping. Seriously, try massacring 32 young adults alone with a knife. Okay, two knives.
It takes a lot of rational planning to build a bomb and detonate it successfully. Obviously people will always find ways of killing other people even without guns, but no matter what it will take more effort than pulling the trigger. Guns make killing too easy. Guns are readily available when you just had a fight with your girlfriend. Homemade explosives aren’t.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Actually, Mac, I don’t know where you got the part about crime rates rising in Washington D.C. and Australia after private gun ownership was banned there. What I know is what I heard, which is that crime rates in parts of the US which banned or restricted gun ownership dropped.
And, I find your assertion that the insurgents in Iraq should not win, and are not going to win, funny. Well, since you’ve stated your opinion on this matter, I think I’ll state mine: The US and Coalition forces in Iraq should not win, and if the war continues, the insurgents are going to win. I don’t know why you say it’s not likely. I might point out that the insurgency is stronger, not weaker, after years of occupation. This is shown by the fact that even as Sunnis and Shiites are fighting, they still have enough power to spare to kill Americans. Imagine what would happen if the two groups were allied against the Americans. Really, the US will lose in Iraq until they learn a lesson from their defeat in Vietnam - that just having the most powerful conventional military in the world does not guarantee victory.
Also, Beowulf’s comment seems to imply that suicide bombings account for most of the US soldiers killed in Iraq. In fact, the majority of US combat deaths are caused by IEDs and gunfights.
Can anyone actually prove that private ownership of guns has reduced crime? Is there any study showing how privately owned guns are used? I think the percentage of times personal firearms are used to defend against criminals is relatively low in proportion to the number of guns owned. I’ve never heard - in newspapers, magazines, the Internet, books, Reader’s Digest (which commonly features crime stories) of a single real-life incident that a person defended himself against criminals with a gun. On the other hand, I have heard of incidents where homeowners accidentally shoot innocents - a man gets lost in the countryside and wanders onto a ranch, then is shot by the ranch owner. A child goes into his parents’ bedroom at night for whatever reason, is taken for a burglar, and then is shot by his dad, using the handgun he always keeps on his bedside table.
Also, one fact that can’t be questioned, regardless of all other “facts”, is that the US has one of the highest homicide rates in the world. Homicide is a “crime of passion” not like murder, which is premeditated. If people didn’t have guns at their sides all the time, would it be nearly as common?
I don’t believe in a complete gun ban, because I still believe in private gun ownership for conscientious and responsible people. However, the process should be made extremely stringent. Would-be gun owners have to get a license, of course, and register with the government. The government should keep a continually updated list on all gun owners. Guns should be refused to anyone with a criminal record. People who want to get a gun have to undergo a battery of tests, every year preferably.
Of course, this system won’t stop people from acquiring guns illegally. But neither will the current system. And under the current system, people don’t even have to get them illegally, cause it’s much easier, and safer to get them legally.
I might even consider getting one myself. But then again, I might not. It’s not that important to me. Those conservative Republican pundits and demagogues like Ann Coulter, who actually said that women in the US should not be allowed to vote, but should be allowed to own guns, just make me laugh.
I never could understand why the “Right to bear arms is so important to some Americans. I can think of a lot of rights that are a lot more important to me. The right to life? The right to food, drink, shelter, clothing, medicine? The right to vote?
April 18th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Reading through this, one thing drives me nuts…
Ok, we all know that alchohol comsumption disappeared in this country when Prohibition went into effect, right? I mean, there weren’t any people who died from getting alcohol from shoe polish or any crime syndicates built off the illegal alcohol industry, right?
And drugs! They’ve been illegal for decades and that’s why no one smokes pot or snorts cocaine or has meth problems…it’s why on South Park when they made crack whore jokes about Cartman’s mom, no one knew what they were talking about…
We don’t have those problems anymore because these things are/were illegal, right?
April 18th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
To concerned Filipino:
As a journalist, I covered at least one story about a convenient store owner who chased robbers out of his store with his pistol. If you read the news, you seem them a few times a year. Most of the time, it isn’t anything that would normally make the news, though. The story I did on it was the 2nd time the storeowner had done it, and it was a rainy Saturday, so there wasn’t much else going on in the small tv market I worked in at the time.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I was interested in viewing your site Brian, but my office net filter categorises it as pornography. Maybe you could throw a link to the article you wrote?
April 18th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
First of all, well said DarkMirage, you pretty much covered everything I can think of when viewing the issue from a pro banning firearm perspective.
That been said, been living in a country that disallow firearm ownership, you are obviously biased on the issue, just like me. I myself realizing my own bias against firearm, is trying to take couple steps back and see the bigger picture.
The way I see it (after reading oh so many posts on different forums), we can debate over whether to ban or not to ban gun in general forever and without getting anywhere. Under ideal situation, either approach works. Under less ideal situation, neither works so well. People who stand on either side of this issue should just realize that there are countries out there that has higher firearm ownership yet less firearm related civil violence, and vice versa, and reach the understanding that firearm ownership itself is not the issue.
A somewhat more relevant debate would be what could US government/school/parents/any entity of power do better as part of a country that allows firearm ownership. Since it’s pretty unrealistic to expect US to enforce a firearm ban at this point.
An even better debate would be on what caused those people to commit the crime they did and how to prevent more people like them from “being created”. If the cause is external, how can we eliminate those external factors, if the factor is internal, how can we eliminate the medium that enables them to carry out the crime.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
It is tragic that 33 people had to die just because 1 person couldn’t handle his emotions. But having lived in the USA for close to 4 years for my university education I have a different viewpoint on the gun control issue.
In a nutshell, America is not Singapore. It doesn’t run like Singapore and it never will. What I noticed about America is that its people value their freedoms greatly, be it their right to bear arms, their freedom of speech etc… Trying to pass a law for public school kids to wear uniforms is already an uphill task which could even lead to angry street demonstrations. What’s the big deal you might ask? The deal is, it stiffles their freedom.
In Singapore we grew up in a world of rules, and basically from what we see, anybody or anything that steps out of line will be squashed. Not too sure how healthy that is but it shocks and angers me that some Singaporeans can dare to suggest the government to BAN cigarettes. Sure, smoking has no benefits but must we be denied yet another of our rights? I’m sure we’re old enough to make a choice on whether we want to smoke or not.
Being located in one of the southern states which was very pro-gun, I myself have fired a few rifles and pistols at the local gun range. This was really an amazing experience for me and it made me respect firearms for its sheer, raw power it posseses.
Sure allowing the sale of firearms would lead to hundreds of deaths a year. But that is the price of freedom. I won’t say banning firearms is a good answer (it’s not gonna happen anyway) but perhaps making it more difficult for people to purchase firearms would be a better solution. Purhaps if buying a firearm had a 6 month waiting period that disgruntled South-Korean student would’ve sorted himself up enough to not go on a shooting rampage?
April 18th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
in the end you know what really needs to be done? Eliminating a citizens right to carry guns at all. This is the one instance in my life where i lean to the extreme left of the political spectrum. What in hells seven circles do you need guns for? “purtektin mah propertee an’ mah daughter” comes immediatly to mind. Its an antiquated law america please do away with it. But in all honesty what would i expect from a country that defends creationism cause some old fucking book said so? Hell that book is a lot older than the founding fathers words!! guess we’ll have to wait another 2000 years before someone unfucks their head from their ass and does something about it.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
I am anti-gun, yes. However, the problem I would like to raise here is the PROBLEM with ENACTING the ban. The way I perceive politics in America, it will be very unlikely for Congress to pass any form of ban on guns, considering the lobbying and whatnot. Americans will likely raise merry hell if the ban is put into effect, and all the paranoid ‘government conspiracy’ people won’t help either.
The problem is, the ‘right’ to hold guns is a sacred one in American culture. Any change (for the better or worse) must start from society itself. Anti-gun activists must encourage and convince the majority of the population to give up gun control. It is unlikely and will take a long time, but it is the most plausible and peaceful solution.
P.S. Non-religious militias will not exist in America, considering how fast it’s evolving (pun, pun) into a Christian nation.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
It is really sad that the pro gunners argue that the tragedy could have been prevented by killing him. That is saying a lot about the American mindset or at least about some of them. Killing should be the LAST option not the first or only.
The best option might have been a competent Psychologist or even random student that noticed the Shooters erratious behaviour.
Thats what was demanded here in Germany after the last comparable case.
A gun ban wouldn´t have prevented this tradegy, maybe not even lessened the killings but gun laws aren´t the reason it happend.
Gun laws aren´t really the stuff we should be discussing in this case how people like dsd pointed out.
It could have gone in both directions, if everyone had a gun he might have been killed on the spot, if no one had a gun (legally) he might never have gotten one. In both case he would still have killed himself.
Its frightening how some just accept that.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Ownbership of guns to symbolise freedom?
Unable to send a mental student to the psychologist because it’d be infringing his rights to freedom?
Guns + psycho = 33 deaths
Freedom of one South Korean to carry out a massacre equates to no freedom of choice to live for 32 others. So much for freedom.
And the ad banner above this comment box says “American Immigratioin Center”. Meh.
On a sidenote, we can see that if DM stops posting bullshit YouTube vids, he can easily churn out a net dorama.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
To Brian Woods: Ah, really? Thanks. I can believe that. After all, I think successful crimes bring more media attention than unsuccessful ones. But still, a lot of guns used for crimes and in accidents were purchased legally.
And an update, just now I did more research on the Internet and it’s been confirmed: The killer purchased both the guns he used legally, not illegally as earlier reported.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
As I said, there will always be people losing their marbles no matter how perfect society becomes. The point of gun control (and laws dealing with weapons of any form) is to make it harder for these people to take a bunch of people with them when it happens.
I don’t really care what the underlying social problems are here because it doesn’t matter. Even if these problems are solved, new ones will emerge and produce more suicidal people.
Since we can’t stop people from going berserk, then limiting the damage one person can cause alone is the next best option.
The Brits seem to be doing fine without their guns. Some criminals still manage to obtain guns, just like how drug addicts still manage to obtain illegal crack. But at least clueless and angst-filled teenagers can’t just walk into Walmart and pick up a shotgun (or a bag of cocaine for that matter).
It’s quite fallacious to argue that because guns will never completely go away, there’s no point outlawing them. You can say the same for almost any law in existence. There are always people who break them, that is why you need law enforcers.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
I think the heart of the gun control issue is the “us or them mentality”. Always the right to defend ourselves first, the rest comes later.
In any case, I’d like to point out a logical fallacy:
Pro-gun activists like to point to the incidence of gun-related crimes, or similarly, the existance of drug addicts, and the prevalance of alcoholism despite strict laws, and then conclude that banning guns is of no use. Perhaps you might think that I’m nitpicking here, but the point is not that gun control laws are ineffective, but that guns (or gun wielding) is not the root of the problem. It does not however mean that the gun control laws have failed, and therefore are useless; that’s taking a huge stride down the slippery slope argument. Might as well say do away with law enforcement altogether, since despite law enforcement, people still commit crime. Its the same reasoning. Law enforcement does not reduce the rate to zero; what it does is (as DM says) reduce the incidence of such tragedies happening. And that’s proven, definitely.
I definitely do not like the so-called “equalising” argument proposed by the pro-gun people too. Totally Cold War era reasoning: Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), i.e. the only way to preserve a tenuous peace between countries would be to stockpile such a load of nuclear warheads pointing at each other that neither dares to launch a strike. Of course, this view bears scrutiny when viewed rationally, however, like the Cuban crisis in 1962, when push comes to shove, who knows what might happen? So now you have guns, then what next? Grenades to counter bombs? The Cold War is a very good study of such destructive methods of defence.
Of course, as mentioned in many people’s argument, there’s freedom, and then there’s society. Freedom refers to the ability for someone to pursue whatever he or she wants, which is very tricky, because strictly speaking, total unbirdled freedom smacks of anarchy. Society is like a cage; being in it imposes certain restrictions (or compulsory concessions/compromises), so total freedom is never achieveable in communal living. It is evident that the pro-gun people view self-right (or freedom) as more important compared to societal considerations, us first, them later. Action-reaction; They have a gun, we whip out ours etc.. Which I think, is definitely the wrong mentality, and also the reason why the US and Swtizerland have such starkly contrasting gun-related crime rates. Beowulf pointed out the training aspect (with ties in with Mac’s point on the need for gun education); but the significant difference lies in the culture; the Swiss’ (and perhaps the Finns’ belief too) that community comes first before self. I think it’s a very crucial aspect which seems to have been overlooked. This point of “us first, them later” is driven home even more strongly by the revelations that despite repeated urgings by the professor towards the police and counsellors to do something, nothing was done, apparently due to their inability (or rather, reluctance) to infringe on another’s “self-right”, which, if they did, might result in the lawsuit. Well, the extreme other “what could have happened if they did not do anything” has happened.
What scares me most is that the most hotly debated issue from this tragedy is that of the gun control issue; and not how society was able to let such a promising young talent fester and rot in the dark, and turn a blind eye when he most needed help. I agree with dsd totally, whenever such an incident happens, its a failing of society, and with such incidents occuring with alarming regularity, I seriously think that a relook into the workings/cogwork of society is needed
April 18th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
“An even better debate would be on what caused those people to commit the crime they did and how to prevent more people like them from “being created”. If the cause is external, how can we eliminate those external factors, if the factor is internal, how can we eliminate the medium that enables them to carry out the crime.”
Agreed. It’s not impossible to stop a person from going off the deep end, but it’s hard, especially when there are no visible signs or when a “suspect” doesn’t want any help involved. Focusing on guns just diverts the issue, since as people have said before, the perpetrator could have killed with other methods. :/
I’d also like to think that even though more suicidal people will occur, jarring events like this will help in efforts to try and minimize the will to carry out further tragic events. The question is how do you do that?
April 19th, 2007 at 1:41 am
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. But they usually use guns. So to avoid the 31 000 deaths caused by guns in America yearly you can either remove the guns or the people. I say ban Americans…..
April 19th, 2007 at 3:57 am
>>>In any case, since when did Switzerland and Finland have a military culture? If having compulsory military training for men equals military culture, Singapore must be Sparta too.
What the hell? I’m guessing you’ve lived in those two countries as long as you’ve lived in the US. You’re right that I’ve never been there either, but I at least read Wikipedia:
“The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training and a mandatory period of service in the Rekrutenschule (the “recruits-school”), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men still remain part of the militia either in a home guard or reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). Each such individual keeps his army-issued personal weapon (the Sig 550 5.56×45 mm assault rifle for enlisted personnel, and/or the SIG-Sauer P220 9 mm semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified quantity of government-issued ammunition (50 rounds 5.6 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unlawful use takes place.”
April 19th, 2007 at 7:58 am
I believe Anti-Gun perspectives have a point IF (and only IF) government (in the form of law enforcement) truly protects the community. Now here’s where the whole “ideal socitety” with no guns blah blah goes horribly wrong. In America, Law Enforcement (government in general) are NOT Obligated to provide protection against such criminals.
“Regardless of how life-threatening the situation, individuals have no grounds for individual police protection. From Warren vs. District of Columbia, 444A.2d1, 1981: Quote: A government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen. Unquote. No court has ever ruled otherwise. Most crimes happen within seconds or minutes, and police cannot be there to help. Police officers cannot be bodyguards. They are there for the public good. It has been proven that criminals are not afraid of police or of the justice system.” (http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/LCCMelissa.html)
Now knowing that there is no one out there to really protect you or for that matter really give a $hit about your safety (when it really counts - which would be at the time of the crime). Would you go out from your home with the knowledge that the government takes away quite possibly the only way that you can protect yourself? Many advocates of Pro-Gun choice come from victims of violent crime; many of which are women (no surprise there). Pepper spray, stun guns mean nothing to rapists or theives high on crack.
As stated in a few posts bullies, madmen, “the bad guys” (however you want to brand them) conduct their acts of savage barbarism because they psychologically believe that they can get away with it. They have insight on where they can prey on the weak (or in this case the defenseless). How many occurances such as this have you seen in a Mall or a proffesional sporting event? Very rare, well that’s because chances are very good that in any of those examples there will be a higher proportion of armed individuals (in the form of off duty police, security, or other forms of lawful individuals possesing a firearm).
April 19th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Simply put, Mr 2 Cents, as I have mentioned, its the whole “us or them mentality”, which, wow, is even enshrined in the law.
If the police are there for the public good, but not to protect the individual, then what are they there for? Eye-candy? Sounds funny isn’t it? Seriously speaking, let’s not go to extremes here; the reason why we still have a society at all is due to the presence of the law, and that of law-enforcement officers. Best of all, you contradicted your entire point by saying that the reason why there are less occurances of crime in malls and events is due to the presence of security forces, which ARE law-enforcement officers no?
In any case, what makes you think guns are enough of a deterrence? So when the crimminals upgrade themselves with bombs you equip yourselves with grenades? Or sniper guns?
Unless there is a change in mindsets/attitudes, I guess we should resign ourselves to the fact that gun control laws are not going to be enacted anytime soon. When such a mentality is so deep-rooted, imposing gun control laws alone (if it ever gets passed) would not help at all.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070419/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_killer_speaks
An interesting article…
April 19th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
By the way, while it may be true that Finland and Switzerland have almost 100% gun ownership (I never heard of that before, although I knew that Switzerland and Finland were both nations that relied on volunteer civilian militias, albeit highly trained ones) instead of professional armies, and they have a low crime rate, let’s not forget that on the other end of the spectrum, there are countries that have very low crime rates and have strict gun control for civilians. Like,uh, you know, Japan? Or even South Korea itself. Although South Korea has had a few shooting rampages in the past, they were all perpetrated by members of the police or military. Those pro-gun people only need to look as far as these two countries to find the answer to the “we need guns to defend ourselves from crim