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 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…