Guns Kill People - Virginia Tech
The debate on guns will go on well beyond the time when the Virginia Tech massacre has stopped making headlines.
This from Jane Smiley in the Huffington Post:
“SOME years ago, I was talking to a man about guns. At the time, I didn’t really know anyone with guns (still don’t), but he did. He had had guns himself. He said, “I gave my gun away, because when I had it, every time something happened that made me mad, my mind would start circling around that gun, and I would be thinking about using it.
So I got rid of it and I’m glad I did.” Right up front I will say that I am opposed to casual gun ownership, but I also realize that Americans will always have guns. Period. It’s a national fetish.
But the mental state my interlocutor was describing years ago is the price we have to pay, along with, of course, the accidental deaths of children and other unprepared and careless people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and in proximity to the wrong gun.
What I would like is for the gun-toting right wing to admit that there is a price we pay, that senseless accidental deaths and traumas are a national cost and that it’s not so clear that it’s worth it, but hey, we pay it anyway because so many guns are in the hands of so many people that there would never be any getting rid of them.
I would like the right wing to admit that guns are not “good” and that the right to bear arms is not an absolute virtue and that the deaths in the US caused by guns are at least as problematic, philosophically, as abortion. But I’m not holding my breath.”
Anorak Forums
April 17th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Yes, there is price we pay. I’m sure you know that freedom isn’t free and we pay in many ways.
I was totally heart broken when I learned of this shooting and my feelings go out to the families of the victims. I was also quite angry this happened because I feel it somehow skews the perception of law-abiding gun owners like myself.
It is clear that the second amendment was created not for hunting, but for protection against any force which wants to take your life or freedom away. I believe that this is worth fighting for. And I think it plays a roll in the checks and balances of our society. I’m sure every politician at some point thinks about the many consequences of their decisions, and being removed from office via a bullet is something I’m sure crosses their mind; especially when they are thinking of cheating the system.
In the first paragraph, it states that the author talked to a man that said he got rid of his guns because his mind would circle around it when something happened. I don’t think this is the normal gun person’s method of thinking. This sounds like the thinking process of someone who is new to guns; when they seem to have the magic that Hollywood has perpetuated. After you have been around guns for a while, they lose this magic and you respect it for what it is. Just like a shiny new sport car.
Guns, good or bad are here to stay. I have a friend from Denmark, a place where all guns are banned, who was telling me about some of the gang shootings outside of Copenhagen and how one the gangs blew-up the hangout of its rival with and RPG. How can this happen when guns are banned? Guns would still be here if they were banned.
Really, you shouldn’t have to worry about guns. You have a better chance of killing yourself on a staircase.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Join the debate - Forums
http://www.anorak.co.uk/forums/
April 18th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
The glib “guns don’t kill people, people do” argument used by many gun lovers simply demonstrates an inability to understand how several dfferent factors can influence a particular statistic (such as gun deaths, or innocent gun deaths). It is an inarguable fact that without guns, no gun deaths would occur. Period. And any rational person would accept that without gun murders, there would be less murders in countries like the US.
The availability of guns is strongly correlated with gun deaths. This includes correlations with both illegal held guns (commonly used by criminals against each other, and in the commission of robberies) and legal guns (as used in the Virginia massacre). Legal guns frequently become illegal guns through various paths.
Even making all guns (or even all lethal weapons) illegal would not prevent killings with such weapons. It is very difficult to erradicate illegal weapons, as has been found in the UK. However, even after some improvement in the 1990s in the US, the UK murder rate is very much lower than that of the US, mostly due to gun murders.
The Copenhagen attack is an example of illegal weapons being used between gangs with some criminal content. I would not like to glibly claim that only criminals died in that particular attack, nor would I condone the attack, but it can be stated with certainty that if it was legal for anyone who could pass a background check to obtain an RPG in Denmark, this attack would not be a unique occurrence.
The combination of guns and particular people and some some circumstances kills people. Removing all potential murderers from the population is a very difficult task. Reducing the number of guns around, and particularly guns suitable for mass murder, is another difficult but feasible task. Either will reduce the innocent death toll, with very little downside, except to the egos of those who worship their guns like they were the favorite part of their anatomy.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
One last point in response to a comment of “Gun-toting right winger”.
Deaths by falling down stairs are significant in the elderly. An ex-colleague of mine worked full time on reducing this statistic in the UK, through better standards and advice. However, in the US, gun deaths are far more significant amoung young people. 2002 statistics show 1.2% of all deaths were due to firearms, but 20.3% of deaths in the 15-24 agegroup, and 14.3% of deaths in the 25-34 age group. Murder statistics in the US have broadly stayed the same since 1999.
These statistics sound unacceptably high to me.