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 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 criminals” argument that they keep recycling over and over again.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
I would just like to say something about guns in Finland. Guns in Finland are used for hunting, you can’t buy a gun for your protection. The thing is pretty much the same as in Canada, from what I know. And you really can’t buy a gun from some supermarket here. There are also differences in the types of guns you can buy, you can’t buy automatic weapons or those other über-kill-your-classmates-with-this type of guns.
Then Finland is not Sparta. Even though it would be funny to shout Finland is Spartaah!! Homosexuality is not such a crucial part of life here as it was in Sparta. Frankly speaking, Finland has a compulsory military service that all males have to go through(not females - so unfair…). We do have alternatives for that, like prison. Being a political prisoner in Finland would be really cool and thats why I’m going to choose prison. Yup you do learn to handle guns there. But it’s more about eating doughnuts.
So I think the key difference here is the designed use for the guns. They should not be for protection, but if you have to have them, then for hunting.
April 20th, 2007 at 10:27 am
So I was watching the news a few (one?) nights ago and the local news people did a report on this. Apparently the gunman was mentally un-sound, depressed, etc and the school didn’t do anything about it. So at least part of the problem has to deal more with the dealings with depressed or otherwise mentally un-well, rather than just the guns themselves.
April 20th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Thats what i wanted to say, but everyone has already given up on saving people who feel depressed or alone. Our society doesn’t look kindly upon people with mental problems, either outright ridiculing them (retards and Down Syndrome) or further isolating them (emo labelling). Look at the one post who even suggests that if a friend is displaying disturbing behavior, its better just to dump him and save your own skin! Maybe someone is really, truly, genuinely depressed. So our solution is just to make sure he doesn’t get a gun?
Like I said, people on this thread probably wouldn’t give two cents if he had only killed himself. It wouldn’t even be on the news. No one would care if he bought 5 assault rifles illegally and only used them on himself. In fact, someone might even laugh at him. Given these circumstances, if you’re depressed, what incentive is there to only kill yourself?
April 20th, 2007 at 11:45 am
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting;_ylt=Arh6To4cTIh6TrT.3GCsR.RH2ocA
April 20th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Beowulf: You obviously do not know what’s it like to be in a country with compulsory military service. The paragraph you just copied and pasted basically applies to every country with national service, well maybe except the part where Sig 550s and ammo are kept in homes. Darkmirage is going to spend two years of his life charging through the forests training to kill the enemy. But he will still be an anime blogger and otaku at heart. He will think of Haruhi and Sakamoto Maaya while digging trenches and cleaning his rifle named Nagato Yuki.
April 21st, 2007 at 2:01 pm
@tj han: Didn’t he say “kallen is mai waifu”? So he has two waifus now? One is the riffle waifu(yuki) and one is the sidearm waifu(kallen)? :P
April 22nd, 2007 at 2:08 am
Actually, when 2cents referred to the presence of security, the point he was making was because they had armed security. Unarmed security can’t do nothing in situations such as Vtech. You think Mr Scum cares much about the uniform? No, he cares more about the fact whether he will be shot or not doing the deed.
Here’s another thing to ponder. Unlike nations or armed gangs, single confrontations don’t require you pack more firepower than the other guy, just enough to put a slug of lead into the other guy. A 9mm semi auto handgun in real terms is just as deadly as a standard police issue 0.38 Smith Wesson only difference being how big the hole is and how long before you die from the shock of the initial hit. Your theory people will feel the need for increased firepower for self defence becomes a fallacy that only people with no real knowledge of what a firearm can actually do, (that and hicks with phallic replacement issues).
A handgun owner, sane of mind and person with the knowledge of what fearsome power he holds will treat it with the utmost respect and unlikely to pull a weapon on someone else in an argument. Even in the “Wild West” Ok Corral doesn’t happen that much despite popular belief. Knowing what a Six Shooter can do to you means that you want to avoid being at the receving end of it. Self preservation usually prevents a desire to punch out or shoot the other guy from succeding and making the other guy do something stupid like drawing a weapon which will make every other weapon owner in the vicinity reach for theirs. (Needless to say, the first idiot who does that finds a big fat bulleyes painted on him) Conceal and carry licences in the US generally carry a whole slate of legal reprucussions for actually using them outside of very specific circumstances. Not everyone is crazy and self destructive enough to pull out a weapon even when he is livid. A newspaper article two days ago wrote of two cops in Malaysia who got into a fight but not once were weapons drawn apparently because self preservation won over the desire to get revenge.
Anyone of you who have been through armed forces training would know how sometimes the last persons in your unit you would give a fork to end up holding a 6.5mm machine of death. Yet no matter how gung ho they appear before handling the weapon, when they actually hold onto it they exhibit enough sense not to point (not to mention shoot) the person they generally don’t have trouble hitting with the nearest blunt object. When I want to inflict pain on someone else during that period I wait until I’ve handed in my weapon, NOT when I could inflict lethal damage on him. So far, I know of only one case told to me by my former CO where a soldier shoots someone who he loathes yet soldiers of sometimes shady background and mental health still bear arms.
Unless you’re a professional crim, (and even then you pick the location), firing a weapon or pointing a weapon first at someone or something puts your life in immediate danger from other people armed, what they’re wearing or calling themselves in real terms is pretty irrelevant. Mass shootings like Vtech occur in the absence of such immediate danger to life and limb. Also note that such shooters want to go down after they have taken a “satisfactory” amount of the persercuters with them. They prefer to be in full control during that time when they’re on the rampage and the fact that they might get ventilated after their first salvo means they would choose softer targets since their fantasy of a bloody finale becomes untenable. The shooters in this case maybe deluded, but their rationale, however twisted can be safely assumed to be functioning.
Lastly, prohibiting anything will work only if this circumstances are met.
1) Reasonable amount of support among populace (7-3 in support)
2) Sources of said contraband can reasonably be shut down or curtailed and contraband is not already widely ciruclated among population. When the ratio is about 5 people to one contraband, prohibtion generally doesn’t work especially considering the US population (300 million)
3)Political will and docile population
In the US, pro and anti gun generally is split down the middle nationwide ironically, the less safe the area the more people there are likely to support being able to buy a weapon.
The US is estimated to have about 200 million firearms in legal circulation. The amount alone makes any gun seizure a logisitics nightmare, not to mention the owners might not hesistate to use them.
The US govt I think is pretty reluctant to start what amounts to low intensity warfare in the homeland. If you think I’m joking, you don’t know how much the Americans suspect their own government. Unlike Sporeans, Americans regard any gov intiative as another screw you package and also unlike Singaporeans, Americans tend to fight back. Then you have those lovely latinos like the Colombians and Cubans who would love to sell back some of their excess weapons to any gringos eager to buy them.
Politically, you might as well deny the Holocaust before even making a hint of banning weapons. At least the KKK will vote for you then.
Lastly to DM, if the US Army can’t disarm Iraq, you really think the FBI, BATF or other federal agency (no national police force. The USA is a federation, meaning cross jurisdictions) can disarm a country multiple times the size of Iraq and a population with the potential to be just as hostile?
Arms control works in SG, the conditions are met. (And I wouldn’t have it any other way) Try that in the USA though, and you might learn why the Americans have a war ditty as their national anthem
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Some broad assumptions…
Here are my thoughts:
1. Guns are outlawed in the UK (and elsewere), but the IRA and criminals in other countries have no problem obtaining them … Therefore, ‘outlaws’ have no problem getting guns even if illegal. Making owning guns illegal only stops law-abiding citizens from owning them…
2. Buying guns should be more ‘difficult.’ Meaning, a private owners should not be able to sell to anyone without obtaining a permit from the buyer or other limitation(s)…
3. The issues isn’t that guns kill…more people likely die form vehicle accidents than handgun violence and we aren’t aiming to eliminate personal vehicle ownership…
What we need is education that teaches acceptance and teaches why we should not accept those that follow ignorant rules (e.g., the ‘popular groups,’ etc…).
The VATech shootings were done by someone who likely felt alone and had not hope for the future..the same feelings shared by those in the middle east who are willing to die for their beliefs. The same feelings shared by those who killed people in Columbine, Co (USA)…
We need to work on accepting people who are different. Imagine … a few people could have accepted this guy as a friend, despite his differences, a few years ago, and the tragedy might have been avoided.
Sad to see that thoughts on who is normal or ’strange’ may actually create violence in those they define.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Well, this will be my first post on here. But anyways….
I really thought the whole thing really had nothing to do with the gun.
It was the teachers, or rather school itself had lead to the event.
Surely, the kid had guns, but if the teachers had do something before hand when there were signs that indicates the kid is going to do it later, it woulddn’t have happened. Same thing goes to the school, how, I really mean it, just HOW in the hell would you not close the school after TWO, not just one, TWO people were killed 2 hours prior to the actual massacre ?! I mean, even if it’s a university, surely, you would think of student’s own safety first, right?
Meh, I just thought I’d add in my two cents.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
You can talk all you want about the gun debate and personally I don’t see the point in keeping them legal but the we all know the reason people died was because the kid was insane. People say he was a loner, thats no joke. He lived down the hall from me here at harper hall 2nd floor. He wouldn’t talk to anyone and was always alone. I mean seriously if you said hello to him he wouldn’t even nod he’d just look away.
Oh and all the students down here know the media is being silly with this whole “didn’t close the school” nonsense. We all saw the police swarming campus immediately after the first shooting. A lock-down just means police pushing people into buildings to prevent movement. They do that when they think a criminal is loose on campus which they didn’t think was the case. The lock-down was issued as soon as it was known the shooter was on campus.
Also it’s illegal to kick students out of Virginia schools for being suicidal. So don’t bother blaming the university for not acting. TBH I’m glad thats the case because a friend of mine was kicked out of GWU (in Washington D.C.) for something he said to a school consoler. If you can’t seek help for fear of being expelled then what’s the point?
Also since some people seem to be confused, VT campus is a gun-free zone. If it became known that he had a gun in his dorm room he would immediately be expelled under a zero-tolerance policy. I’m not sure if there would be any further punishments.
Finally in case it wasn’t pointed out yet, the shooter bought the guns perfectly legally. One from a gun store in Roanoke, VA some 40 miles up interstate 81 and I forgot where the other was from. All you need to do is pass a background check, have several forms of ID, and deal with waiting periods to buy guns.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
well, even if you take all the legal guns away, someone could still buy one illegaly. and for those psycopaths who dont have accese to a black market? bombs. and it would be just as easy to kill 32 or 32,000 people with a bomb.
April 27th, 2007 at 5:41 am
Well, to start off… I’m american, and a student at VT… (I’ve also been a frequent visitor to this site for some time.)
You have some very good points in your article DM, americans love their guns. However, though I do not think you meant this, I would like to point out that… Not All Americans love guns. Many do, and on a general and semi-stereotyped basis, those who have/love guns, are fanatical about it. Those people… scare me.
@(73% of everyone)I think that there is also a bit more to fixing things than just gun control. Or rather, the way so many comments before this have put it, they all make it sound too easy. “Put up a law, officials walk door to door with a Wal-Mart bag collecting guns, and ‘mission accomplished… now to beat up the bad guys…”
April 27th, 2007 at 5:42 am
(for some reason… my comment was cut off x_x)
cont’d… [from above]
April 27th, 2007 at 5:43 am
GAH!