Skip to main content

Guns 'n Violence

Regarding the horrors of the Virginia Tech murders, a staggering array of inanities have been uttered. This will probably continue into the foreseeable future. Among my favorites was a comment over at the HuffPo, made to a Jane Smiley entry, that said right-wingers should acknowledge that "people with guns kill more people than people without guns."

How trite. My response: In a violent confrontation, people with guns save more people than people without guns.

It's a mix of common sense and horrific logic, but killers choose places like schools for their sprees because they know they won't encounter armed resistance. We have enshrined schools as "gun-free zones". We have taken this to logical absurdities. Virginia state law allows citizens, with proper training and background checks, to carry concealed weapons, but Virginia Tech regulations forbade this practice. In California, the law is written in such a way that even a police officer, on campus as a student, cannot bring a firearm onto school grounds.

Since so many are speculating on the efficacy of laws that disarm law-abiding citizens, let us also speculate on how things might have happened at Virginia Tech if someone in Norris Hall had been able to shoot back. It's doubtful if the death toll would have been so high.

This is not just idle speculation. We have an example of what might have happened. In 2002, at the Appalachia Law School in Virginia, someone started going on a killing spree. Armed students interceded and the killer was apprehended. He was stopped and arrested by armed students and faculty, not the police.

Police cannot watch over us day and night in anticipation of some harm that might befall us. Indeed, as a free society we shouldn't want that sort of "protection". The very nature of the Second Amendment is to allow the citizenry to provide for its own defense. Virginia Tech illustrates why.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Wow, it’s been over a year. What a way to get back to this blog because… Are the films of the MCU getting worse? It’s a serious question because the latest that I’ve seen, Thor: Love and Thunder and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania , are strong arguments that the answer is “yes.” Summary: Ant-Man & Ant-Family get sucked into the quantum realm, where skullduggery is afoot. A load of crap ensues. I’m an Ant-Man fan. I loved the first film despite its flaws. It would have been wonderful to see what Edgar Wright may have wrought. It was clear, though, that replacement director Peyton Reed kept some of Wright’s ideas alive. The result was one of the MCU’s most intimate films, a straight-forward tale of a Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) desperate to remain in his daughter’s life while being “gifted” the life of a superhero. Ant-Man and the Wasp sorta stayed that course, but naturally, because this is the modern MCU, we had to have a female superhero take over, the titular Wasp (Hope van Dyne,
Post a Comment
Read more

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that
Post a Comment
Read more

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered.
Post a Comment
Read more