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 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?