Obviously both sides have divided into their respective camps to use the shooting tragedy as ammunition (no pun intended) to sling at the other side.
I'm about the only neutral person I know when it comes to this debate because I've lived in countries that have draconian gun laws, and I live here. I've been trained in martial arts and I'm big -- so I'd love a world without guns because I could rule it (just joking) -- but I've also been a member of Special Forces and well trained in weapons.
Here's the bottom line...gun control was already in place at Virginia Tech i.e. nobody is allowed to take guns on the campus except for sworn law enforcement officers. Gun control didn't work very well then did it? All it meant, as it always does, is that law abiding citizens were left defenseless while the lunatic (strange that he didn't abide by the law eh?) went on his rampage.
This begs the question. Could someone carrying on campus have put an end to his rampage before his toll got into double digits? Well the problem has been asked and answered in May of last year in an Oklahoma City mall. A kid pulled a gun and was about to go on a killing spree when an off-duty sheriff's deputy heard the first shot and was able to shoot the shooter first. Nobody knows how many victims there may have been if he had not been present with a weapon.
It's black and white folks...the only way to stop that killer yesterday was to shoot him first.
How about the argument that if we had gun control across the country he wouldn't have been able to get a firearm? Great idea in theory but it hasn't worked very well as far as illegal drugs are concerned has it. In other words, they banned drugs here a long time ago. In fact we declared war on them and that war costs billions. Anybody going to tell me you can't buy any illegal drug of your choice within five miles of your home? Banning guns would achieve exactly the same result. If you're still having trouble wrapping your head round that look at England which has some of the most draconian gun laws on the planet. Want to bet me you can't get guns in England if you're so inclined?
That leaves us right back where we started i.e. law abiding citizens are disarmed while the bad guys walk round with impunity.
How about the police argument? I'll answer that one directly. Virginia Tech has it's own police department. 31 people still died there yesterday and the bad guy didn't die at their hands, he died at his. The Police, like it or not, are only trained to deal with crime AFTER the fact. That may be great for nabbing the bad guys (or not, as the case may be) but it does very little for the victims.
Yes, arming teachers would be controversial and yes, there's an element of risk. If you made it public knowledge that you were doing so the teacher might be the very first victim (keep in mind the German teacher was the very first person to be shot in the German class at Virginia Tech despite not being armed) but, if you didn't tell anyone!!!
If you take guns out of the equation all you're left with is the old "Fight, Flight or Freeze" which would amount to attack the guy unarmed, run and hope he doesn't shoot you in the back or "freeze" which in this case would mean going to ground and hiding -- and hope he doesn't find you and shoot you in your hiding spot.
I don't know about you people but 31 victims who tried all of the above i.e. fighting, flighting or hiding are all dead which doesn't really instill much faith in those methods if that's your answer to the gun/no gun question.
Let me finish by posing this question. If you are a believer in gun control what is your solution to yesterday's problem exactly? Don't just blather on about why guns are bad, and don't accuse me of being some sort of psycho, just come up with a viable option and I'm on board.
I just don't see one when I look at it other than the obvious, arm the faculty.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
"Want to bet me you can't get guns in England if you're so inclined?"
It's really difficult. And the criminal implications are large. You commit a crime with a loaded gun, that's another 10 years on your sentence. Which is why most muggers, burglars, robbers don't use guns.
We've still got the crime. But less people die.
Amen, sir!
I don't think it is accurate to argue that gun control was already in effect at VA Tech. That's a straw man because gun control is about more than just putting restrictions on where a person is allowed to carry, it also would put restrictions on how guns can be legally obtained.
I believe that people should be allowed to own guns for three purposes: in-home defense, recreational shooting and hunting. The only legitimate purposes for handguns such as glocks are the first two. So the solution is not with the gun but with the ammo.
You should be allowed to purchase enough ammo to defend your home, If you also wish to engage in recreational shooting, you should have to purchase and discharge your ammo on site.
Rich,
It wasn't difficult at all when I lived there. Perhaps you don't associate with the right crowd.
As for committing a crime with a gun and getting ten years on your sentence...exactly how would that have deterred the maniac at Virginia Tech. He would have received a lengthy prison sentence here as well, had he not killed himself.
The,
Thanks for your post. It is my understanding that gun control is not being able to purchase them and not being able to own them, so, I'll stand by my point that gun control is alive and well at VT. (You can't buy them on campus and you can't legally own/carry one)
As for the ammo question...interesting idea, but I don't think it's very practical. We already have restrictions on drugs...and yet there's no shortage of them available. Why would ammo be any different? Once again, the law abiding citizen would have his requisite number of rounds for home defense (how many is that by the way?) and the criminals would have as many as they wanted.
Remember the kid that shot the prayer group in the school a few years ago? He didn't legally purchase the gun or the ammo...he stole it from his neighbors house.
I, too am pretty much neutral on the gun control issue. I can see both sides, and I think they are both pretty much nuts.
This country gave up on the idea of disarming the populace 240 years ago. Even if we stopped manufacturing weapons right now, virtually every gun made within the last century is still functional or could be made workable pretty easily.
I don't like the idea of guns because, on the whole, only bad guys have guns when they need them. Good guys tend to either discount the idea of carrying/using a weapon or they responsibly lock them up when not in use. Even if possession were legal on campuses in America, the vast majority of students wouldn't have them available during an incident like the Virginia Tech shootings.
Glad to see you weighing in on the Va Tech shootings, Nick. I figured your opinion would be pretty interesting.
We have very tough gun laws in Australia too but I can buy one if I hang around with the right crowd as Nick says. Check out your bikie gangs, white supremacists, any hunters or shooters clubs will have a few among the membership who will sell you a piece if they think you are cool and not a cop. If I just wanted a gun in a hurry I would take one from a security guard or cop. When I lived in the Philippines I found I had relatives of my wife who made guns in Danao. I had a nice 8 shot .22magnum revolver and a .45 Colt Auto that was almost as good as the original. Push comes to shove I would make one out of pipe, lacky bands and a nail. Perry
Post a Comment