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?
April 18th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Ownbership of guns to symbolise freedom?
Unable to send a mental student to the psychologist because it’d be infringing his rights to freedom?
Guns + psycho = 33 deaths
Freedom of one South Korean to carry out a massacre equates to no freedom of choice to live for 32 others. So much for freedom.
And the ad banner above this comment box says “American Immigratioin Center”. Meh.
On a sidenote, we can see that if DM stops posting bullshit YouTube vids, he can easily churn out a net dorama.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
To Brian Woods: Ah, really? Thanks. I can believe that. After all, I think successful crimes bring more media attention than unsuccessful ones. But still, a lot of guns used for crimes and in accidents were purchased legally.
And an update, just now I did more research on the Internet and it’s been confirmed: The killer purchased both the guns he used legally, not illegally as earlier reported.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
As I said, there will always be people losing their marbles no matter how perfect society becomes. The point of gun control (and laws dealing with weapons of any form) is to make it harder for these people to take a bunch of people with them when it happens.
I don’t really care what the underlying social problems are here because it doesn’t matter. Even if these problems are solved, new ones will emerge and produce more suicidal people.
Since we can’t stop people from going berserk, then limiting the damage one person can cause alone is the next best option.
The Brits seem to be doing fine without their guns. Some criminals still manage to obtain guns, just like how drug addicts still manage to obtain illegal crack. But at least clueless and angst-filled teenagers can’t just walk into Walmart and pick up a shotgun (or a bag of cocaine for that matter).
It’s quite fallacious to argue that because guns will never completely go away, there’s no point outlawing them. You can say the same for almost any law in existence. There are always people who break them, that is why you need law enforcers.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
I think the heart of the gun control issue is the “us or them mentality”. Always the right to defend ourselves first, the rest comes later.
In any case, I’d like to point out a logical fallacy:
Pro-gun activists like to point to the incidence of gun-related crimes, or similarly, the existance of drug addicts, and the prevalance of alcoholism despite strict laws, and then conclude that banning guns is of no use. Perhaps you might think that I’m nitpicking here, but the point is not that gun control laws are ineffective, but that guns (or gun wielding) is not the root of the problem. It does not however mean that the gun control laws have failed, and therefore are useless; that’s taking a huge stride down the slippery slope argument. Might as well say do away with law enforcement altogether, since despite law enforcement, people still commit crime. Its the same reasoning. Law enforcement does not reduce the rate to zero; what it does is (as DM says) reduce the incidence of such tragedies happening. And that’s proven, definitely.
I definitely do not like the so-called “equalising” argument proposed by the pro-gun people too. Totally Cold War era reasoning: Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), i.e. the only way to preserve a tenuous peace between countries would be to stockpile such a load of nuclear warheads pointing at each other that neither dares to launch a strike. Of course, this view bears scrutiny when viewed rationally, however, like the Cuban crisis in 1962, when push comes to shove, who knows what might happen? So now you have guns, then what next? Grenades to counter bombs? The Cold War is a very good study of such destructive methods of defence.
Of course, as mentioned in many people’s argument, there’s freedom, and then there’s society. Freedom refers to the ability for someone to pursue whatever he or she wants, which is very tricky, because strictly speaking, total unbirdled freedom smacks of anarchy. Society is like a cage; being in it imposes certain restrictions (or compulsory concessions/compromises), so total freedom is never achieveable in communal living. It is evident that the pro-gun people view self-right (or freedom) as more important compared to societal considerations, us first, them later. Action-reaction; They have a gun, we whip out ours etc.. Which I think, is definitely the wrong mentality, and also the reason why the US and Swtizerland have such starkly contrasting gun-related crime rates. Beowulf pointed out the training aspect (with ties in with Mac’s point on the need for gun education); but the significant difference lies in the culture; the Swiss’ (and perhaps the Finns’ belief too) that community comes first before self. I think it’s a very crucial aspect which seems to have been overlooked. This point of “us first, them later” is driven home even more strongly by the revelations that despite repeated urgings by the professor towards the police and counsellors to do something, nothing was done, apparently due to their inability (or rather, reluctance) to infringe on another’s “self-right”, which, if they did, might result in the lawsuit. Well, the extreme other “what could have happened if they did not do anything” has happened.
What scares me most is that the most hotly debated issue from this tragedy is that of the gun control issue; and not how society was able to let such a promising young talent fester and rot in the dark, and turn a blind eye when he most needed help. I agree with dsd totally, whenever such an incident happens, its a failing of society, and with such incidents occuring with alarming regularity, I seriously think that a relook into the workings/cogwork of society is needed
April 18th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
“An even better debate would be on what caused those people to commit the crime they did and how to prevent more people like them from “being created”. If the cause is external, how can we eliminate those external factors, if the factor is internal, how can we eliminate the medium that enables them to carry out the crime.”
Agreed. It’s not impossible to stop a person from going off the deep end, but it’s hard, especially when there are no visible signs or when a “suspect” doesn’t want any help involved. Focusing on guns just diverts the issue, since as people have said before, the perpetrator could have killed with other methods. :/
I’d also like to think that even though more suicidal people will occur, jarring events like this will help in efforts to try and minimize the will to carry out further tragic events. The question is how do you do that?
April 19th, 2007 at 1:41 am
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. But they usually use guns. So to avoid the 31 000 deaths caused by guns in America yearly you can either remove the guns or the people. I say ban Americans…..
April 19th, 2007 at 3:57 am
>>>In any case, since when did Switzerland and Finland have a military culture? If having compulsory military training for men equals military culture, Singapore must be Sparta too.
What the hell? I’m guessing you’ve lived in those two countries as long as you’ve lived in the US. You’re right that I’ve never been there either, but I at least read Wikipedia:
“The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training and a mandatory period of service in the Rekrutenschule (the “recruits-school”), the initial boot camp, after which Swiss men still remain part of the militia either in a home guard or reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers). Each such individual keeps his army-issued personal weapon (the Sig 550 5.56×45 mm assault rifle for enlisted personnel, and/or the SIG-Sauer P220 9 mm semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified quantity of government-issued ammunition (50 rounds 5.6 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unlawful use takes place.”
April 19th, 2007 at 7:58 am
I believe Anti-Gun perspectives have a point IF (and only IF) government (in the form of law enforcement) truly protects the community. Now here’s where the whole “ideal socitety” with no guns blah blah goes horribly wrong. In America, Law Enforcement (government in general) are NOT Obligated to provide protection against such criminals.
“Regardless of how life-threatening the situation, individuals have no grounds for individual police protection. From Warren vs. District of Columbia, 444A.2d1, 1981: Quote: A government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen. Unquote. No court has ever ruled otherwise. Most crimes happen within seconds or minutes, and police cannot be there to help. Police officers cannot be bodyguards. They are there for the public good. It has been proven that criminals are not afraid of police or of the justice system.” (http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/LCCMelissa.html)
Now knowing that there is no one out there to really protect you or for that matter really give a $hit about your safety (when it really counts – which would be at the time of the crime). Would you go out from your home with the knowledge that the government takes away quite possibly the only way that you can protect yourself? Many advocates of Pro-Gun choice come from victims of violent crime; many of which are women (no surprise there). Pepper spray, stun guns mean nothing to rapists or theives high on crack.
As stated in a few posts bullies, madmen, “the bad guys” (however you want to brand them) conduct their acts of savage barbarism because they psychologically believe that they can get away with it. They have insight on where they can prey on the weak (or in this case the defenseless). How many occurances such as this have you seen in a Mall or a proffesional sporting event? Very rare, well that’s because chances are very good that in any of those examples there will be a higher proportion of armed individuals (in the form of off duty police, security, or other forms of lawful individuals possesing a firearm).
April 19th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Simply put, Mr 2 Cents, as I have mentioned, its the whole “us or them mentality”, which, wow, is even enshrined in the law.
If the police are there for the public good, but not to protect the individual, then what are they there for? Eye-candy? Sounds funny isn’t it? Seriously speaking, let’s not go to extremes here; the reason why we still have a society at all is due to the presence of the law, and that of law-enforcement officers. Best of all, you contradicted your entire point by saying that the reason why there are less occurances of crime in malls and events is due to the presence of security forces, which ARE law-enforcement officers no?
In any case, what makes you think guns are enough of a deterrence? So when the crimminals upgrade themselves with bombs you equip yourselves with grenades? Or sniper guns?
Unless there is a change in mindsets/attitudes, I guess we should resign ourselves to the fact that gun control laws are not going to be enacted anytime soon. When such a mentality is so deep-rooted, imposing gun control laws alone (if it ever gets passed) would not help at all.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070419/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_killer_speaks
An interesting article…
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!
April 29th, 2007 at 11:25 am
OUT LAW GUNS,,, HEY THAT WORKED SO WELL WITH DRUGS I THINK SOME OF THE PEOPLE HERE SMOKED THERES BEFORE LEAVING THERE REPLY
April 30th, 2007 at 12:26 am
>>> How easy is it get access to illegal guns? How easy would it be to get access to illegal guns if guns were banned?
It’s called “smuggling”. You know, people from other countries buy weapons (illegal or legal kind) and smuggle them into the USA illegally, then sell them to people who want to get them, who for the most part probably are criminals.
As a side note, a friend of mine, as well as my mother, lived in Virginia for a long time. The crime rate there went up when guns were banned, and really hasn’t gone down that much.
And as for a link that proves presence of guns doesn’t really increase the frequency of crimes, take a look here. It’s a few years old, but I’m sure it’s just as accurate as the day it was written.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288
On a final note, I myself own a rifle, and have owned a rifle, and plan to own one pistol. Not because I believe in protecting myself and others around me, that’s a given. I would give my life to protect myself and my friends, whether I carried a firearm or not. I own these weapons as a hobby. I go out to ranges (shooting ranges) and shoot my weapons. I go home, and I clean them. I keep the shell casings merely on a whim, and arrange them around my room because I can. Also, I keep my ammunition locked up in a combination safe that only I know the combination to. Unless someone brings their own ammo into my place, no one will be using my weapons to kill anyone.
I pride myself as a collector of things, and one thing that catches my fancy is firearms. I don’t keep them to “protect myself from the greater evil” or some other bullshit like that. That’s just a biproduct of having, in my eyes. That’s just a shallow and transparent argument for having guns, in my eyes, and if that’s how you feel, join the police. My roommate is, because he has that kind of mentality, and he as well owns many more firearms than I do. He similarly keeps them locked up in two different safes: one for ammunition, one for weapons. I know it would make them difficult to get to in an emergency, but that is the price of weapons-safety.
This argument can be made over and over and over, but it will never solve anything. And before you go off saying things about me because of what I’ve said and who I am, I do want to keep myself and others safe, and I might end up joining the police or the military. My father and mother both were in the military at some point in their lives. As were their parents. I would not think of joining unless it was something I myself wanted to do, and I might just do that. No one needs a reason to want to protect others from something, all they need is a means. Guns, knives, your fists, can provide those means. Up till now, I’ve been using my fists and blades to protect myself and my friends. I might soon upgrade to a firearm, but haven’t given it that much thought. Not everyone who supports guns and gun-ownership are totally convservative psychos. ya know. It’s just sad that this country is built pretty much that way.
May 15th, 2007 at 9:33 am
I think whether private ownership of guns is appropriate is decided by the actual instance of different countries.
May 20th, 2007 at 5:47 am
Beverly Hills Teen Charged in Hammer Attack on Girl
Saturday , May 19, 2007
AP
LOS ANGELES — A 17-year-old Beverly Hills boy accused of beating a prep school classmate with a claw hammer as they sat in his Jaguar must remain in a psychiatric hospital, a judge ruled.
A juvenile court judge on Friday refused to order the teenager removed from the hospital where he was admitted after being taken into custody Monday. He was charged as a juvenile with attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon.
The boy, whose name was not released because of his age, attacked a 17-year-old girl who also attended exclusive Harvard-Westlake School as they sat in his car on a Studio City street, authorities said.
The girl’s mother, Barbara Hayden, told the Los Angeles Times her daughter was struck 40 times with a claw hammer, breaking her nose, shattering her leg and splitting open her scalp in several places.
“Her hair and face were caked with blood,” Hayden said. “On the left side, her head was shaped like a football.”
Hayden said her daughter told her that before pulling the hammer from a backpack her classmate said he had thought about committing suicide.
The boy’s lawyer, Patrick Smith, said his client was troubled but declined to elaborate.
After her attacker hit her several times, the girl’s mother said, he pulled her from the car by her hair and continued assaulting her until the hammer broke. Then he began to choke her until she bit his finger.
______________________
Uh-oh! Better ban claw hammers!!
Guns Don’t Kill People, Gun Control Kills People
July 6th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Simple post.
People kill people.
Guns don’t kill people. Gun control doesn’t kill people. Atomic bombs don’t kill people. Oxidation doesn’t kill people. Water doesn’t kill people (well, usually).
Well, I like to think the problem usually comes from gun inequality. In america, some have guns, some don’t. Therefore the ones that don’t are less safe than the ones that have.
So. You either ban guns from everyone except the police, military and such (and hope they’re competent). Or you force everyone to have guns.
I know. It sounds crazy. Its from a Repairman Jack book. The guy mentioned compulsory checks on roadblocks for everyone to have guns. Then he’ll move out for a few years, wait for the massacres to settle and go back to the politest country you’ll ever see.
But then, I see your point.
Freedom is limited to the intelligence of the people.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
The ironical thing is, I read a statistic somewhere that says that your life is in greater danger if you own a gun than if you don’t.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:33 am
just leave the guns alone because the guns are most country folks self defence if you are going to dis anything then dis the dumb people that do the killing
July 31st, 2008 at 10:28 am
….Wow, 1) You’ll never get them outlawed, because of hunting, and I am a hunter 2) I love guns, and many people enjoy being able to go to a range with their privately owned firearm, or carry one around for protection, so because a few people use them terribly (and the press jumps all over it) they should be outlawed? If guns were outlawed, people would still be killed, and anyways, remember the prohibition? It would be the same thing, and eventually they’d have to legalize them again.
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
i’m can see points for and against in regards to this.
I believe one of the main causes behind deaths involving firearms, as that the person weilding them don’t respect the firepower they are waving around and have not been properly trained in how to use them safely, and people who have never fired a gun in their life cannot make an informed decision on gun ownership cos they haven’t experienced what it’s like to fire one.
i myself only fired a gun recently on my 21st birthday and it was only after i pulled the trigger that the realisation hit home, that every hole in the target is another person dead, but at the same time, it allowed me to treat the gun with respect, and as such me, and the whole family, had a great time.
the country i live in (australia) has had it’s share of nasty shooting massacres, most prominent being the port arthur massacre, because of that one in particular guns became heavily restricted or banned in most cases, however this has done nothing to lower crime rates, the number of illegal firearms found or used just keeps piling up instead and there were still a couple of shooting spree’s which occured sometime after the port arthur massacre.
also there are other uses for guns beside defence, pest control for example (wild pigs are a massive problem here) as well as target shooting, which is a legitimate sport, so it really comes down what you want to own a gun for, and what type of gun, yeah no one needs an automatic weapon, thatsa given, but owning a rifle for hunting, or a pistol for target shooting, yeah thats ok with me, so long as the person is trained in how to use it properly and safely.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Just going back to the Japanese censorship topic from a previous post…
Millions of people own / possess firearms… some of them are serial killers.
I’m not going to say what gun is appropriate, what isn’t, what is for hunting, or what is for self defense. I believe that self-defense is a unalienable human right, and that a gun is most powerful when it does not have to be used. But, like any power, it can be misused and abused.
Banning firearms will not prevent crimes from being performed with firearms. A society that promotes respect for laws and life and justly punishes law breakers that do not, will get much better results. Not everyone needs to own a firearm… just enough to provide adequate deterrence. If a mugger thinks that one in five people might be armed, he just might think twice about attacking someone. Unfortunately, most cities are “gun free” zones, and 10 out of 10 people are potential victims.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Before the innovation of the Gun, Mankind has had the mantality of solving their problems by the extermination of persons who hold opposite points of view. Swords, lances, and War Clan/Societies have risen despite all of those who oppose bloodshed. The Issue is not about restricting gun ownership, but to control the people who are “free” to do as they please. Many people, when given power, will never let it go: for instance, the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire in its beginnings was controlled by a senate, created to defend the people, and to elect a commander of emergency powers when the territory would be invaded. Not only did the Empower retain his power, but he started to gain more without any consideration to the senate. In the end, the Roman Empire fell to corruption in an office that held too much power. The power to protect is a power that only the people (if it truly is a democracy) can provide.
Many people state that the police are there to protect every person living under their charge, but considering that 911 is known as “dial a prayer,” the police is there just to mop up the blood and say “I’m sorry” (If the officer is nice). The people are the ones who make the government function, not the government controls everything. The original government of the Constitution of the United States was originally created to protect the rights of every man, and nothing else. And like most countries around the world, we (as in America) became sheep. People who wouldn’t care less unless it affected them. A self-revolving universe could destroy not only a “Pure” government, but would destroy the very core of humanity itself.
We think that we can prevent catastrophes by banning weapons, when the rotten core of the people is the real reasons for the deaths. Most things in the universe are categorized as Amoral, which means that is a neutral object, per se a brick. You could use a brick to create a hospital, or you could throw the brick at a police officer during a riot. Guns are created for killing, which some state that killing is evil, so it must be evil, but sometimes, death is the path that you must take to preserve life, or else, there would be no terrorist bombings in Iraq, or the need for standing armies, or officers guarding places like Columbine and Virginia Tech.
To truly make a difference in the staggering crime rate of today, we must change the psychological madness that consumes all, not target an Amoral object that cannot work without guidance.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
(Paragraph 1 line 1) As you say”most people living Asia”, you don’t live here in the USA. So you need to speak of your own country not of mine.
(Paragraph 1 line 6 & 7) You think the Second Amendment is a good idea badly conveyed and horribly misinterpreted. The Second Amendment is a great idea. It is not badly conveyed it has changed. It is no longer for the use of stading up against a corrupt government it is for the purpose of self defence against the criminals that the democatic keep releasing from prison.
(Paragraph 2 line 1 & 4)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. Look at the Obama Administration! They (The Democrats) are trying to take my rights along with every Americans rights away. We might need our guns!
(Paragraph 2 line 4 & 5)This might have been effective two hundred years ago when everyone used wooden musket guns. You are an idiot, Have you ever shot a wooden musket? Muskets were never made of wood! Do you even know what would happen if you took black powder, a lead pellot and discharged it in a wood musket? It would blow up in your face and you would die. That might be a good idea for you to try it.
(Paragraph 2 line 8 & 9)(Paragraph 4 line 2, 3 & 4)keeping a pistol by your bedside will help you if someone decided to turn America into a theocratic dictatorship? Obama is doing a great job of that right in front of our faces not in bed in our sleep. The reason for having a gun by my bed to protect my family from the criminals that the liberal democrats release from prison every day.
(Paragraph 4 line 4 & 5)the irony is that the criminal is armed only because he too is allowed to possess firearms under the same set of laws. We have laws that keep criminals from owning guns.Once they choose to become a criminal these laws no longer exist for them. You are still showing that you are an idiot. They are criminals, they do not care about any laws!!!!!
(Paragraph 4 line 5,6 ,7 & 8)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. Are right and you are wrong. Do your reasearch on Australia, Crime with firearms went up 300% because of gun control!
(Paragraph 4 line 8,9 ,10 & 11)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. I live in America, There is and will be no such thing as proper law enforcement! Besides that point, you mean to say that I should allow my family, myself and other to die before the American government steps in to lower the amount of gun in this country? How many innocent lives do you want for the sake of public safety? And you thing I am selfish because I want my family to live? You are again an idiot! Would you be so willing to give you life in the interest of public safety?
(Paragraph 5 line 1 & 2)Also, it is important to note that carrying a gun does not necessarily mean you are safer. Once again you are proving that you are an idiot. Now, let me see, criminals are cowards, If a criminal sees and knows I have a gun, do you really think he is going to confront me? Do you really think that he is going to attach, rob, car jack, rape my wife and or daughter? No, he will go for someone weak and with out a gun. A criminal does not want to die much like you and I.
(Paragraph 6 line 1)Guns make killing all to easy. You’r an idiot. In (Paragraph 8 line 1 & 2) Knives, baseball bats, metal rods, golf clubs, lengths of rope, glass shards, rocks and, yes, even guns can kill people. All of these things can not kill without human action. If a criminal does not pick up and use any of these they can not kill.
I have access to all of these items in my very home and they have not killed anyone. Once again, it takes human enteraction for any of these items to kill. What you are saying to all of these people is that we should ban all of these items because of what you believe you can do with these things. You do not want to place the blame were the blame belongs. To the criminal.
Once a criminal is captuered, we as a sociaty should kill the criminal. No more criminals, no more crimes. Right? When the liberal democrats place these criminals in prison for 10 to 20 years, we the people have to pay to feed them, house them and pay for their medical bills. The state in America where I live we the tax payer paid $252,000,000.00 USD, just for the criminals medical bills alone. That’s not including housing and feeding these criminals. Once they are released 90% of these criminals continue to commit crimes and get sent back to prison.
So in finishing my statement, YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!!!
February 2nd, 2011 at 11:13 am
Hey I think your blog is good. I found it on aol I will definately check back soon.