Still Not Getting It

Before I begin this post let me address a couple of issues that have been raised by people commenting on the blogs.

The first comment was in regard to police ineptitude and the author had heard the second shooting took an hour...an hour in which the police didn't respond until it was all over.

Alright, at first rub that sounds ridiculous. He killed 30 or so people during the second spree so to take an hour would have been one person shot every two minutes??? I heard the gunfire on the witnesses cell phone and it sounded way more rapid to me. Sure enough, I poked round on line and he began shooting at 09:15 am and finished at 09:20...that, if my math instructor didn't fail me, is a far more likely one victim every ten seconds. Given he walked from room to room that sounds much more likely. That gives the cops a five minute window in which to get from one side of the campus where they're investigating the first shooting to the other side, break down the chained doors and go inside. Doesn't sound like police ineptitude to me.

Second comment is still about the guns. Alright...one more time. Can we all agree (gun control argument aside for just one moment) that the only way to effectively stop a gunman is with another gun? Please tell me none of you anti-gun folks would actually suggest another method? So, the best method, nay, the only method, with available guns, is to arm other people such as teachers, and they, like the off-duty cop in the mall, could have put an end to this crap early on.
(In fact one could argue it might never have happened if he'd known there were armed teachers...after all, he didn't go out and start shooting cops who were armed did he?)

Now the gun control argument. Can we also please all agree that the gun genie is out of the bottle. There is no effective way to remove all the guns that are out there. If there was an amnesty, the only people who'd give up their guns would be the law abiding honest ones. Does anyone with a modicum of intelligence deny this? That would mean, just as it has with the drug trade, that crooks would still have them, and, they'd be readily available to anyone with criminal intent.

What you're saying then is you're quite happy for the crooks to have them and quite happy for you not to have them? Which leaves you exactly where when the bad guys go on the rampage? Oh, that's right, hoping it doesn't happen to you and calling the cops, who, once again, will deal with the crime after the fact. See how many kids died at VT waiting for the cavalry to arrive.

Now, before anyone goes on again about our guns and our gun culture let me clarify a few things. I am by no means advocating everyone be able to purchase guns 2nd amendment or not. I think there should be an extensive training program, a written and practical exam and an extensive background check. In Sweden before you can go hunting you have to pass a 180 question test, and demonstrate a proficiency with the weapon (against clay pigeons) and show that you know how to safely handle the weapon including loading, unloading and climbing over fences etc. That's brilliant and you'll hear no complaints from me if we wanted to implement that over here. There absolutely should be responsibility that comes along with ownership.

Regarding our gun culture...yep, it can be a problem. There are other countries that have guns readily available that don't have the same problems we do...but, before you start criticizing us too loudly we, and our gun culture did bail the civilized rest of the world out of WWI - which you started, WWII - which you started - and the cold war. Besides which, to put it all in to perspective, a lot more kids are going to die on campuses around America this year from drugs, alcohol and vehicular accidents. Where are all the anti-drug, anti-alcohol and anti-car groups when you need 'em? Want to know the numbers? For alcohol related binge drinking, falls and vehicle accidents 1,400 students will die this year. So, where should we be focusing our outrage?

The Dreaded "Gun Control" Issue

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.