No easy answers
In the aftermath of the horrible tragedy at Virginia Tech, everyone seems to be casting about for easy answers. Most of those seem to be either to ban all guns, or allow professors and students on campus to be armed. Neither of these is a really good idea.
All over the internet there are ludicrous claims that this incident would have been cut short by one professor with a gun. Or, worse yet, arming several thousand high-strung, sometimes not totally mature, college students.
The thought that arming the students and faculty would have helped in this case is simply absurd. Now, I'm a defender of the 2nd amendment, and no fan of gun control, but lets be real here. If there had been, say 10 people with guns in that building, how would anyone have known who to shoot?That situation was chaos and pandemonium. Let's say you're a professor and you've got your gun. There's gunfire in the hallway. Kids screaming, a storm of kids running past your doorway. You rush out with your gun to see two kids popping shots off at one another. One of them is in a doorway of a classroom near some bodies, the other seems to be the one the kids are running from. Who do you shoot? Neither, because both kids confused each other for the shooter, who has already moved to the next floor.
Additionally, now you've just made the situation more confusing for the police. SWAT has a bead on somebody firing shots from across the street through a window, but now they can't shoot because it could be anybody. The killer drops his guns and slips out or lies among the dead with a self-inflicted gunshot wound, while some poor schmoe with a CC license gets to be the next Ruby Ridge.
And lastly, the last thing that situation needed was more bullets flying around. Only the killer and the most astute professional military and police are calm in a situation like that, and then not always.This doesn't mean there needs to be some huge ban on firearms, but a 3 or 7 day waiting period while there was a gun check on Cho, that uncovered his stalking cases and mental health history, would have saved a lot more lives than some Wyatt Earp wannabe.
Banning all guns? That doesn't thrill me either. Yes, in countries where gun control was enacted nationwide, gun crimes are virtually nonexistent.
Additionally, D.C. (which some people point to as a sign gun bans do not work) has a problem because it is 5 minute drive across the Wilson Bridge to Virginia, which has no gun laws essentially. Anyone pointing to D.C. as a sign of failed gun control is being, at best, grossly disingenuous.
That said, if the English government decides to oppress its people, the English are screwed. They have no way to fight back, and I'm pretty sure there won't be some hero in a Guy Fawkes mask to save the day. Same goes in China. If the Chinese populace were armed, (or the North Korean one) there'd be a lot more kowtowing from the government.
Tyranny by the government over a populace of sheep will never happen here because they know we're armed.
The truth is this: If we want to have guns and protect our freedoms, we'll keep paying this price. There's no clean win here, something that both the gun control and anti-gun control advocates keep trying to sell us on. At least keep the debate honest. Neither side will result in an ideal situation. It isn't an ideal world. The question is: which slightly sucky situation do you want to live with? And is there a middle ground?
I think so. It's turned out, as I said earlier, that the shooter had cases of stalking and cases of mental illness that were documented. Things a background check would have hopefully discovered. But Virginia refuses to have even basic and reasonable gun laws. Thus 33 kids and professors are dead. It doesn't require a ban, doesn't even require that the state keep a track of what gun you bought and where you bought it. Heck, you could even stipulate that the background check files are confidential once the check is over and destroy them. The law-abiding, and sane, keep their guns, and the criminal, and insane, have one vector of obtaining a means to kill closed to them.
Yes, you can still get guns on the street. But let's look at Cho, the killer, or the kids from Columbine....now try to imagine them realistically getting guns illegal. Read up on Cho and envision him walking into, say, the D.C. ghetto and trying to find an illegal gun to buy....
Just keep the debate honest. Maybe, for once, that will lead to honest answers.
All over the internet there are ludicrous claims that this incident would have been cut short by one professor with a gun. Or, worse yet, arming several thousand high-strung, sometimes not totally mature, college students.
The thought that arming the students and faculty would have helped in this case is simply absurd. Now, I'm a defender of the 2nd amendment, and no fan of gun control, but lets be real here. If there had been, say 10 people with guns in that building, how would anyone have known who to shoot?That situation was chaos and pandemonium. Let's say you're a professor and you've got your gun. There's gunfire in the hallway. Kids screaming, a storm of kids running past your doorway. You rush out with your gun to see two kids popping shots off at one another. One of them is in a doorway of a classroom near some bodies, the other seems to be the one the kids are running from. Who do you shoot? Neither, because both kids confused each other for the shooter, who has already moved to the next floor.
Additionally, now you've just made the situation more confusing for the police. SWAT has a bead on somebody firing shots from across the street through a window, but now they can't shoot because it could be anybody. The killer drops his guns and slips out or lies among the dead with a self-inflicted gunshot wound, while some poor schmoe with a CC license gets to be the next Ruby Ridge.
And lastly, the last thing that situation needed was more bullets flying around. Only the killer and the most astute professional military and police are calm in a situation like that, and then not always.This doesn't mean there needs to be some huge ban on firearms, but a 3 or 7 day waiting period while there was a gun check on Cho, that uncovered his stalking cases and mental health history, would have saved a lot more lives than some Wyatt Earp wannabe.
Banning all guns? That doesn't thrill me either. Yes, in countries where gun control was enacted nationwide, gun crimes are virtually nonexistent.
Additionally, D.C. (which some people point to as a sign gun bans do not work) has a problem because it is 5 minute drive across the Wilson Bridge to Virginia, which has no gun laws essentially. Anyone pointing to D.C. as a sign of failed gun control is being, at best, grossly disingenuous.
That said, if the English government decides to oppress its people, the English are screwed. They have no way to fight back, and I'm pretty sure there won't be some hero in a Guy Fawkes mask to save the day. Same goes in China. If the Chinese populace were armed, (or the North Korean one) there'd be a lot more kowtowing from the government.
Tyranny by the government over a populace of sheep will never happen here because they know we're armed.
The truth is this: If we want to have guns and protect our freedoms, we'll keep paying this price. There's no clean win here, something that both the gun control and anti-gun control advocates keep trying to sell us on. At least keep the debate honest. Neither side will result in an ideal situation. It isn't an ideal world. The question is: which slightly sucky situation do you want to live with? And is there a middle ground?
I think so. It's turned out, as I said earlier, that the shooter had cases of stalking and cases of mental illness that were documented. Things a background check would have hopefully discovered. But Virginia refuses to have even basic and reasonable gun laws. Thus 33 kids and professors are dead. It doesn't require a ban, doesn't even require that the state keep a track of what gun you bought and where you bought it. Heck, you could even stipulate that the background check files are confidential once the check is over and destroy them. The law-abiding, and sane, keep their guns, and the criminal, and insane, have one vector of obtaining a means to kill closed to them.
Yes, you can still get guns on the street. But let's look at Cho, the killer, or the kids from Columbine....now try to imagine them realistically getting guns illegal. Read up on Cho and envision him walking into, say, the D.C. ghetto and trying to find an illegal gun to buy....
Just keep the debate honest. Maybe, for once, that will lead to honest answers.
posted by Dark Lord at 2:22 PM
1 comments
