Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Interpreting the 2nd amendment

Here

Here

Yet another tragedy that could have been avoided. This guy was obviously disturbed, obviously had mental problems, and in hindsight he should have been provided better care. The immediate question that hasn't been solved in the wake of Columbine, in the wake of Virginia Tech, or is likely to be solved in the wake of this shooting either is: Just what the fuck are we gonna do to keep this from happening again? From the gun advocate side people claim that arming more people will prevent a shooter from being able to kill as many people because armed citizens will be able to shoot back. Some people suggest closing off campuses more to prevent people with guns from getting into school buildings. Others suggest banning violent video games, or violent movies, or violence in popular culture all together.

Each suggested answer is a means towards an end designed to reduce these events.
1 - ARM MORE LAWFUL CITIZENS. THE END RESULT BEING, THEORETICALLY, THAT WHEN A GUNMAN ATTACKS, HE'LL BE STOPPED BEFORE HE CAN DO TOO MUCH DAMAGE. Sure, this would probably reduce the amount of people killed in these kinds of attacks. It also might discourage people from comitting them, knowing they're likely to get shot at themselves. However people that commit these crimes are intent on killing themselves anyways, how discouraged would they be by that? They know they're likely to face armed police in the end already. So while this might reduce the amount of people killed, it wouldn't necessarily reduce the frequency of the attacks. Also, having more people carrying around guns would increase the frequency of guns being used in crimes. A fight that normally might end up with a few loosed teeth and black eyes would have the potential to turn deadly. Add alcohol to the equation on a college campus, and it's hard to imagine that the overall result would be less dead or injured.

2 - LOCK DOWN COLLEGE CAMPUSES. We already live in a much less free society than we used to. Schools, airports, office buildings, all have had security increased drastically due to events like these. (In the case of airports, it's of course for other reasons as well) Still, events like this seem to be on the rise. It's not that more violent events are occuring, it's that the level of devastation per event is increasing drastically. I don't think that increased security is a bad idea, unlike idea number 1. Still it's an idea that I don't like. I hate living in a frightened, reactionary society, and I imagine most other people feel the same way. Still, this idea doesn't stop events from occuring as much as it does keep them from occuring in any specific place. The increase in security at schools and offices has led to the increase in shooting occuring at other public places like malls.

3 - THE INCREASE IN VIOLENCE IN VIDEO GAMES, MOVIES, AND ON TV IS CORRELATED TO THE INCREASE IN THESE TYPES OF EVENTS. ALSO THE PEOPLE WHO COMMIT THESE ATTROCITIES ARE OFTEN FANS OF, OR ARE OBSESSED WITH THESE PRODUCTS. Some people feel that reducing or banning such violent entertainment would reduce these occurances, and others believe that they are the direct cause. I don't disagree that the level of violence in our popular culture has gotten to an unacceptable level. What I do disagree with is that it is the cause. The cause is people who are disturbed, who need help, who need to be watched out for. This doesn't mean that violent culture does not nurture them in the wrong direction, but it's difficult if not impossible to imply causation. I personally would hate to see games like GTA become banned, I find them alot of fun. Still it's disturbing the sadistic opportunities provided in those kinds of games. I've never found it the least bit entertaining to drive around mowing down pedestrians in a game like that, but some people do, and those impulses maybe shouldn't be nurtured. I'm not a psychologist, so I couldn't tell you whether providing those imaginary opportunites nurtures a sadistic desire or if it provides a consequence-free environtment to vent hurtful impulses. What I do know is that banning violence in entertainment is not the sure way to prevent these occurances.


So then what do we do about this problem? First of all as I said earlier I think it's important to take the issue of mental health seriously. I know it's difficult to be worried about someone close to you, or even about someone you don't know that well, and to try to take action about it. But we need to lose the stigma surrounding it so that people are more comfortable getting help if and when they need it. That aside, there's something quicker and easier we can do to completely solve the devastating scope of these incidents.

STOP SELLING GUNS THAT ARE ONLY USEFUL FOR KILLING PEOPLE! At Virginia Tech, the shooter had extended magazines that allowed him to get off a ridiculous amount of shots before he was stopped. In the NIU case, the shooter had extended magazines that allowed him to hold 33 bullets in each magazine. In both cases, the shooters ordered part of their stockpile from the same website, which shipped them to them! There is no fucking reason that a person needs this kind of weapon. Guns are made for, as I can see it, three reasons. Hunting, self-defense, and straight up fucking murdering people. I'm not for making all guns illegal. I believe that the 2nd ammendment give you the right to own a rifle to keep King George out of your front garden. I also believe that it gives people the right to defend your homes. I also believe people have the right to hunt. That only, however, covers shotguns, hunting rifles, and small caliber, small magazine handguns. There is no lawful reason I can concieve that a person should need any other weapon. Anything other than one of these weapons should be made illegal as soon as fucking possible. Everything other than one of these weapons should be made illegal to own, operate, sell, or to manufacture for sale to any other source than military or law enforcement. Sure this doesn't solve the problem completely, but it will certainly reduce the amount of casualties.

There is another simple fix that can help reduce the number of these events, but this post is already pretty long, and I get the sense that in my rambling I may have already lost the coherence I intended, so I'll save that for now.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Thanks to the gun lobby, and their Republican friends in Congress, it's currently legal to purchase an assault weapon; the ban expired in 2004. Luckily there have been no high profile shootings involving assault rifles, but imagine how bad that could get. As a country, we're being taken backwards in the cause of preventing gun violence.

My favorite quote from a recent Reuters article on a shooting in Louisiana:

http://in.reuters.com/article/
worldNews/idINIndia-31840020080209?
pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

"Mass shootings are not particularly rare in the United States, where the gun-ownership lobby is politically influential and gun control is far less strict than in many countries."

To an international audience, there's no question that lack of suitable gun control laws is the reason. Imagine CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, or even an American newspaper saying that. They'd have the NRA and the gun lobby on their ass.