I'm sitting a my computer reading everything I can about the horrific events that unfolded today at Virginia Tech. Only a few hours have passed, the gunman's identity is still unknown, the number of casualties continues to mount, and already people are trying to assign blame, play politics and make sense of it all.
It didn't take very long for Gather to post a poll on gun control, and conspiracy theories on terrorism abound in internet chat rooms. Poltics and psychobabble. American violence vs. European peacefulness. "Guns don't people, people kill people." Colleges are filled with mental illness and the pressure to succeed. And I hate to even imagine what conversations we will be having if the gunmen's racial idenity is confirmed to be Asian (the current rumor.)
It is natural to struggle and grasp to make sense of this horrific massacre. But I think the reality of these situations is that they are inherently senseless, and any kind of politcs we try to play as a result of it is reactive and ultimately unproductive.
People can decry the violence of modern times; however, the most deadly school massacre, and most deadly of any massacre in US history occured on May 18, 1927, almost exactly 80 years ago. And the attacker did not have a deadly assaut weapon, he had dynamite. Dynamite was also used for a school attack in 1959.
Michael Moore will have you believe that Americans are more violent than their peaceful northern neighbors in Bowling for Columbine. He must have forgotten the 14 women massacred in Montreal in 1989 and couldn't have predicted the 1 dead and 20 injured there in 2006. Not even Europe is immune, and eight children were killed in Japan with a knife. Even the Amish aren't safe!
People talk about the pressures of school and the oppression of peers in Columbine, but sometimes people are just plain old mentally ill, like in the infamous Charles Whitman shooting where he killed 15 people at the University of Texas with a rifle. In his will Whitman donated money to the mentally ill, requested an autopsy, and a massive tumor pressing against his amygdala was discovered. Or sometimes people are not mentally ill at all, they just simply don't like Mondays, like Brenda Ann Spencer, who, yes, is a woman, because we can't generalize about male violence either, and sometimes women kill too.
It's perfectly natural to try and intellectuallize what happened today at Virginia Tech. It's comofrting to believe that we might have some control or some ability to prevent these diasters, but I'm not sure that we can. And too often, I believe politicizing these events, generalizing about killers and colleges, and spewing psychobabble can distract us from stopping, breathing, and mourning the loss of 32 innocents today.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 12
We watched the CBS Nightly News and the first words out of Katie Couric's mouth were to the effect not enough was done by Va. Tech to prevent this...then she began the "grilling process" of those in position of authority there. Sad.
I was glad to see the head of the college put her in place of sorts by answering the question she posed to him in an obvious attempt to get him to ackowledge some sort of mistakes were made by his staff to which he answered his only thoughts for the moment were with the families.
The reason for the ubiquitous availability of gun is simply because the constitution of this nation guarantees us that right! That being said, there is a lot more to the problem. I own several guns and have never been in a position to use one on another human being. Virtually every household I know owns several guns but don't commit crimes with them! Why? When you can come up with the answer to that maybe we can extrapolate from that, some treatment for the problem!
A second thing to look at is how many of the serious gun crimes are committed with a legal gun? It would be impossible to remove all guns from the homes of individuals in this country without a police state and in doing so we would be creating a police state. I'm less afraid of guns in my neighbor's hands than I am of a police state.
Hunting is not an issue here! I hunt but have done so with archery for many years. And, as someone pointed out, there is far less murder with weapons in Canada even though they have the same per capita gun ownership! Why?
I have no doubt that the anti gun, anti hunting crowd will try to parlay this into another attack on legal gun ownership. We've seen that before.
This is what makes us better human beings, a better nation. Not the "mistakes were made" approach, but the "let's get to the bottom of this and do everything we can to ensure this will not happen again." If I were a parent of one of the deceased student's, I would be crying out for this kind of approach so that others would not have to go through the same pain.
Where has our intellectual and moral drive gone as a nation? Where is our collective indignation at this outrage? We should be asking many questions and doing something with the answers we get, even if they are not ones that are comfortable in our own idealogical worlds.
I'm not really sure we learned all that much from Columbine if now, 8 years later, history is repeating itself as it always does.
And as far as politics, the gun debate is even unfolding on this thread. And amazingly people from BOTH sides are using it to support their ideology. I am very pro gun control, but not because of freak incidents like this, but because of the thousands of people that die from guns every year. Those crimes are what are preventable, but Columbines and Virginia Techs could happen even without widespread access to semi-automatics.
Regarding Virginia Tech, we can analyze it all we want, but sometimes, evil is simply evil.
Appreciate your comments! If the reason for the second amendment were only to insure the militia have guns the amendment would never have been included! When has a notion denied it's armies weapons? And why would a nation deny such? That makes no sense if you think about it. The amendment does not say "the right of the militia" or "the right of persons in the militia" but rather, "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed! Instituting this clause to insure the army (militia) has guns would have been laughed at by the delegates!
Also, the militia part is an indication of the reason for guaranteeing, to the people, the right to keep and bear arms! Their thinking was that when a government gets oppressive, and has a militia, the citizen needs weapons to protect themselves and deal with the situation. After all, we had just broken free from the oppressive English king at that time because everyone had guns! Not just King George's soldiers!
I'm not saying that there can be no restrictions. And the Supreme Court upheld the restrictions on fully automatic weapons in 1939. And the foundling fathers didn't have nukes to consider! But they did have rifles and pistols and these should be relatively unrestricted by the constitution's guarantee!
I also agree that sometimes people who are keeping guns for various reasons are not necessarily the people I like to see armed! I've heard people describe a situation where they felt threatened and say "Sure wish I'd had my 357 with me!" I always ask why, would you have killed someone? And followed with a short lecture that anyone using a gun for defense has the same responsibility as a police officer to make sure there is no other option!
////On a personal note, I'm getting pretty sick of the pro-gun BS about home security, police state, constitution, and all of the other marketing crap, 9/10s of which is total bunck. In my life I've yet to hear about a person successfully defending their home with a gun, and yet I've read story after story about how a child shoots another child to death because some irresponsible gun owner simply left his/her weapon laying around. /////
I can tell you on a personal note, that I am pretty sick of the anti-gun and anti-hunting BS spread by people who have a different perspective because of their background and biases! They are entitled to a different opinion, just don't ignore my feelings and opinions as being invalid because my perspective is different! You can always lobby for repeal of the second amendment if you are a champion of futile efforts!
Pick up a copy of the American Rifleman magazine and you will read in each issue, a list of a descriptions of citizens who were armed, successfully protecting themselves or preventing crime! I'm not a member of the NRA as I felt their philosophies go to the extreme but the magazine has good information you don't often get from the press! Over the years, right here in Boise, Idaho, I've read and heard of guns being used to prevent crime, protect citizens and hold criminals when the guns were owned by regular citizens. It happens! And which home do you think a burglar would rather enter, one where there were guns or one where he knew there were none?
And although I don't recommend it for everyone, having a gun is the last ditch protection one can have for their home and family. There is no way in hell that the police can baby sit every home at all times. Their job is really to apprehend criminals after the crime has been committed. We hope that will deter others from the same crime but in this instance obviously wouldn't!
I believe that the effort to blame tragedies such as this on guns and gun availability do a great disservice because they take the responsibility off of people who perpetrate misuse of guns and blame the gun, thereby creating another diffusion of blame! I would closer blame such tragedies on television and instant communications which spreads these stories for others to lap up!
I would also point out that crime has increased in Australia since there gun legislation was enacted, not reduced as had been touted!
In case you hadn't noticed, it's a dangerous world out there! And there are people who cause me concern about my safety, and whom I stay away from! If I see a situation degenerating I'll get out of there! My "pride" won't keep me in a dangerous situation! I don't intend on having to use a gun for protection. But I sure as hell will if necessary! I would also point out that over 50,000 people die on our highways every year because of the ubiquitous automobile but I don't hear people saying "Outlaw private vehicle ownership" do you?
Although my youngest son lost his best friend from an accidental shooting at a party and I've certainly known of others, I'll take a nation with reasonably unrestricted gun ownership over a police state any day and it's certainly going to be more difficult (not impossible) to impose a true police state on an armed citizenry!
I'm sorry you think the constitution, home defense, and a police state are marketing tools and, as you stated "pure bunk!" I certainly see them in a lot less emotional and realistic manner. These are real concerns for a majority of our citizens!
I guess I should look on the good side, you aren't accusing me of being a screaming liberal pink-o at any rate!
My goal is not to change your mind. It's simply to help you understand that other reasonable people have a valid and supportable view point as well!
Thanks for the dialogue!