guns
i listened to a call-in radio talk show as i turned in for the evening last night, and was genuinely perplexed when i heard several callers make the argument that yesterday's virgina tech massacre is testimony to the need for loosening up gun control and making firearms more readily available to the average citizen.there were the expected invocations of the 2nd amendment, presuming as always that tenets put in place by a bunch of slave holders and misogynists proffer incontrovertible philosophical and moral high ground.
what really got me, though, was when these reactionaries tried to qualify their argument by claiming that further shootings could've been averted following the initial murders if other students had been armed.
ignoring that the existence of guns is ultimately predicated on the function of ending life with as much ease as merely pulling a trigger, and that making firearms more readily available is only going to bolster the likelihood that massacres like this occur in the future, one could say that yes, there's a chance that yesterday's death toll would've been smaller if other students were packing.
then again, there's also a chance that yesterday's death toll would've been smaller if dorm and classroom security had been tighter, not to mention what might've been avoided if virginia tech administration had been more responsive in warning the campus of what was happening.
the argument that lenient gun control restrictions are a foregone, sensible means of creating a world where ordinary citizens have access to effective self-defense is just very, very strange to me. how come tasers and other less lethal means of self-protection are always ignored in this type of discussion?
when you're drawing on the slaughter wrought by a SUICIDAL maniac as evidence that we need to make firearms easier to obtain, doesn't the killing power of guns -- and the resultant deterrent quality inhered therein, which is the prime difference separating guns and less lethal devices capable of incapacitation -- essentially become a moot point?
posted by jomilkman @ 9:07 AM
9 Comments:
i really fucking hate gun nuts.
Their argument doesn't make sense. Anyone can own a gun. It's a choice. My guess is that most college students choose not to own guns.
exactly.
as it stands, gun control is lenient enough for cho seung-hui to have conveniently purchased the glock and a box of practice ammunition that he used in the killing spree. it really wasn't prohibitive laws that could be blamed for the fact that fellow students and professors in the vicinity weren't packing, but rather their choice not to carry around a firearm.
anticipating the kind of thinking employed by the talk show callers i mentioned, the conclusion would be that citizens ought to basically arm themselves en masse to adequately prepare for nightmare scenarios like yesterday's massacre, but i think that's also a dubious proposition.
I like your point about tasers. I also always forget to bring that up to the card carrying members of the NRA whose only arguments is guns make peace.
jon: smart man
on the same radio program last night (tuesday), one caller asserted that even if gun control becomes stricter, anyone who really wants a gun can always find one on the black market.
uh-huh. the black market's simply notorious for its bargain basement steal-of-a-deals. firearms would certainly never be prohibitively expensive on the black market, not even in a hypothetical world where they're harder to come by legally.
unfortunately, i think what happened at VA Tech has nothing to do with gun control. why, for the love of God, do people always jump to this topic when someone does something like this? It is fairly obvious that, as you mentioned, the guy was a psychopath...psychopaths usually figure out how to destroy, whether it is with guns or bombs, or whatever else they can find.
Instead of gun control (for or against), why not discuss the fact that so many people are dissatisfied with their lives these days, to the point of insane actions. why not discuss the reasons behind why he picked up the gun and shot 31 people, instead of the simple fact that he used a gun to do it.
also, taser does not beat 9mm glock..maybe a stun gun..you don't have to be so close to use it.
i think that's a good point, april.
i think the word 'tragedy', which has inevitably been applied to the shootings, is inadequate to describe what happened, as the notion of cause and effect isn't covered in its definition. terrible accidents are tragedies; this was a premeditated massacre, and it would be prudent for us to ask why this happened if we are to reduce the chances of it happening again.
at the same time, it's also prudent for us to ask HOW this happened if we are to reduce the chances of it happening again, and seeing as how details on the killer's background were slow to see the light of day, it makes sense that initial discussions revolved around his means of calmly executing 33 people unmolested.
incidentally, tasers fire up to 30 feet ... stun guns are what require direct contact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser#TASER
yes! It's not about gun control. I wish that the media's focus was more on the victims and their families, and the mental health of the shooter.
well said, april
Post a Comment
<< Home