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

Have I mentioned I saw Monsters vs. Aliens?

It’s possible that Pixar is becoming a blight on the world of animation. Yes, they do some really great work ( The Incredibles , Ratatouille ), but they’ve also done some clunkers ( Cars , Wall-E ). Their greatest sin, though, is that they apparently radiate a variation of the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field, so that any other animated film – especially if done with CG – is automatically judged inferior. There is some justification to this, but you don’t see every live action film being compared to, say, the films of Ingmar Bergman (well, except by brooding people wearing dark glasses sitting in dim coffee shops smoking clove cigarettes discussing cinema, damn you ). In the traditional film world, it’s accepted that different artists turn out different products. In the animated world, everyone is supposed to match or surpass Pixar, or so it seems. Needless to say, that’s just a crock. Monsters vs Aliens is to your typical Pixar production as Spielberg is to Scorsese. And I h...
2 comments
Read more

Dune Part 2 (2024)

I have come not to praise Dune but to bury it. I am in a distinct minority. So be it. To explain why, there will be some minor spoilers ahead; sorry. The short version is #NotMyDune. Summary: Picking up where Dune Part 1 left off, we find the young Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) hanging out with the Fremen. Plots to overthrow rival houses and empires ensue. Go here to see what I thought about Dune Part 1 (2021) . Overall, I found it to be technically brilliant, but lacking a human heart, an exercise in frenetic slow motion. D2 is more of the same, though with far more action. Acting-wise, everyone is doing a fine, more than adequate job. Absolutely no one or nothing stands out. The way the characters are written (adapted, actually), their back and forths and interactions, are all weak and unengaging. I generally hate when they speak. I've read the novel a ridiculous number of times, and these films are prompting me to read it again. I understand that trying to translate the n...
1 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