Guns are the solution, not the problem
September 16, 2006 · By Aaron Unruh
The real tragedy of Dawson College is that the terrorized students could not defend themselves. The real irony of those people who are now calling for more restrictions on firearms is that it would have taken just one student, just one, with a concealed weapon to have taken out Gill before his shooting spree really got under way. Guns are not the problem, a lack of guns is. The problem is that Dawson College’s students had no guns of their own with which to defend themselves against the killer.
Or maybe I should reformulate that statement. Guns are not the problem, the lack of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens and the concentration of those guns in the hands of criminals is the problem. And, of course, it is the gun registry which succeeds so well at penalizing law-abiding gun owners while doing nothing to solve the problem of criminals with guns.
As was said on this site here, the firearm registry did not save Anastacia DeSousa. But guns in the hands of the Dawson students could have.
[IMG ] I was waiting for this…As was said on this site here, the firearm registry did not save Anastacia DeSousa. But guns in the hands of the Dawson students could have. This is the typical shoot em up American argument that is also used by right-whingnuts like David Tomlinson of the National Firearms Assoc. of Canada. Can you imagine how many people would have died in the crossfire? Think before you blog.
Possibly.
But police want all the glory, so they don’t want more people packing firearms, and most urban dwellers have no reason to pack around a gun except for self-defence or to shoot the odd rat. :-)
Apart from such libertarian musing, consider television, video games, music, slagging religiousity, and how otherwise spiritually unhinged people seem to be these days. Unrefined by the harsh realities of a world without welfare, more people packing firearms could well be like Mad Max rather than old West civility.
Truth be told, I think the police response was what prevented more casualties. But I don’t really know.
“Guns are not the problem, the lack of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens and the concentration of those guns in the hands of criminals is the problem.”
If there were more guns carried by citizens, what would be the response of criminals? Of course, they would get more and bigger guns. Not only that, but the number of persons killed by “law-abiding” citizens in a momentary fit of rage over one thing or another would result in an increase in the murder rate that would far outweigh the number “saved” by these same citizens.
I suppose you are a John Lott fan; his data have been shown to be full of errors of omission and commission.
George. I have the same opinion regarding the police response. It also helped that the shooter started shooting almost as soon as he entered the grounds, from what I have read, before he entered the buildings. The shots outside alerted cops nearby, who were right on Gill’s heels in the building. He did not have a chance to roam like Marc Lepine at the UdeM.
Aaron: I see the logic of the argument about students with weapons. but it might also have taken one or two determined students without weapons to take down Gill. The same is true with Lepine in 1988, when men got out of the shooter’s way so that he could aim better at the women. It seems that madness is more common than manliness these days.
Lott’s data is not in error. If it is, tell us why the newspapers in the US are not filled with horror stories of legal CCW people shooting each other. It simply does not happen.
But , if you take the time to look, you will discover that Washington D. C., Baltimore, LA, NYC, Philly, the cities with the most restrictive gun laws, have the most gun crime.
When states introduce CCW, rape, assault, home invasions, violent crime of all kinds plummet. It doesn’t take complicated statistics to figure this out.
Not everyone gets a CCW permit. Psych and police checks are the usual requirement. About 5% of the population carries where it is legal–and that’s enough to drop crimes against people and property significantly.
Hundreds of times per day in the US a CCW citizen need only to show the firearm to stop a crime.
Gun banners believe they have a moral superiority. Tell me. Which person is morally superior: a dead raped woman strangled with her own panties, or a woman who shot the rapist with a handgun?
Gun control is misnamed. It should be called “victim disarmament.”
Also, Richard, it’s not the size of the firearm that wins gunfights. It’s the quality of the aim. CCW people must take training in conflict resolution, and safe firing. Criminals do not know how to shoot accurately. And, Richard, if you can make a statement about the escalation of firearms sizes, you are revealing your ignorance about firearms. Police carry .40 calibre firearms. The largest concealable calibre firearm is .45 calibre. Do you know what “calibre” means?
What a shock… someone on the rightwing wants uo emulate The Wild Wild West.
Give me a break.
“Give me a break.”
Have you done something wrong?
Is Mr. Unruh’s post a hoax? The line of “argument” in it is breathtakingly inane.
How so?
Breathtakingly insane is not much of a criticism since it does not explain.
As opposed to just regular breath-inducing inane.
Yes Aaron, as opposed to that kind of inanity. Wonderful clarification.
The argument seems silly because it boils everything down a large and complex issue to “if all students were armed on that particular day the outcome would be different” (i.e. students would have been able to defend themselves using their own automatic or semi-automatic weapons).
A – Of course the outcome would have been different, but who is to say that it would have been better. There was a lot of confusion that day and adding more guns to it would not have likely improved the situation. There were reports of plain clothed officers on the scene, leading some students to be confused about the number of shooters, etc. Of course the students would have been confused about what was going on – we all would have if we had been in the same situation. Any number of bad things could have happened in this confusion – possibly a plain clothed law enforcement official could have been mistakenly identified as being an accomplice to the actual shooter and killed.
B – Now, before you guys jump up and down and say that coward would never have showed up if he knew that all the students were armed – you may be right, who knows what goes through the mind of animals lie this. However, it seems to me that a school full of armed people is a really bad idea – and I am not aware of a first-world jurisdiction where this would be supported, including the United States – which has the most liberal gun posession legal environment among first world countries. Law abiding people are not immune from making bad decisions inspired by the heat of the moment, and the use of arms against someone is an irrevocable response, likely more often than not resulting in the death of another. If you don’t buy that or use the “a person doesn’t just need a gun to kill another defence”, I think it would have to at least be acknowledged that accidental deaths from weapons discharging would likely happen and would be more frequent and serious than accidental protractor impalement – a new development that I think is unacceptable, certainly in a school.
These points do not seek to argue for or against the gun registry. I think they reflect a common sense line of thinking on this. I am more than happy to argue this further as I think the original post advocates for an absolutely insane society that I do not think many Canadians would like to see. Perhaps you will think that my post is equally inane.
Shame on you Aaron for not using inane commentary to promote better breathing!
“Yes Aaron, as opposed to that kind of inanity. Wonderful clarification.”
Wonderful? Here’s some advice, my friend: Stay clear of the adjectives.
“The argument seems silly because it boils everything down a large and complex issue to “if all students were armed on that particular day the outcome would be different†(i.e. students would have been able to defend themselves using their own automatic or semi-automatic weapons).”
Not “would,” “could.” I don’t know how it would have turned out, but it might have turned out better. I think it probably would have.
And you haven’t demonstrated that it wouldn’t, notwithstanding all your little gloomy scenarios about confusion and multiple shooters and locusts and blah blah. One easily identifiable person walked into a room and started shooting. Surely a cafeteria full of armed students would have responded to that threat by returning fire.
At least if the students were armed, they could have had the dignity of fighting back. I’d rather die fighting than hiding, and guns would have given the students the opportunity to have done just that. I know that you will not understand this.
“and the use of arms against someone is an irrevocable response, likely more often than not resulting in the death of another.”
No kidding.
“…I think the original post advocates for an absolutely insane society that I do not think many Canadians would like to see.”
I agree. Canadians tend to be deferential cowards. Come visit Alberta sometime.
On your last point (whatever it is supposed to mean or imply), I was born and raised in Alberta.
I don’t need your fabulous advice on adjectives.
Your response is just a bunch of bafflegab (in response to my post – that you think is bafflegab). Cafeteria full of students opening fire? Come on. There is no dignity to be had when a crazed loner decides to stroll into a school and start shooting, regardless of whether students have guns or not. End of story.
You’re not alone Aaron, Rondi Adamson in yesterday’s Toronto Star had this to say:
It is equally fatuous to insist that widespread gun use would stop rampage killings.
“I don’t need your fabulous advice on adjectives.”
Lyndon is the authority on all things fabulous.
“There is no dignity to be had when a crazed loner decides to stroll into a school and start shooting, regardless of whether students have guns or not. ”
Sure there is. And heroism too. Surely you agree that the cop that took out Gill before he could kill more students is a hero? Or do only recognize people that attend protests and sign petitions as heroes?
“End of story.”
Well, no, because I just responded. Hopefully it’s the end of your story.
Gun Control and the Dumbest Things I Have Ever Read…
Read the following excerpts from Conservative Blogs while sitting down, I don?t want to be responsible for any injuries suffered while fainting.
From The Politic:…
Real men don’t run to lawyers to fight their battles.
“Real men don’t hide behind made up names.”
That’s certainly what the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution thought when they wrote the Federalist Papers. None of us pseudonymous cowards ever amount to anything.
I wear a skirt.