Wading into the Post-VT Gun Talk
April 23, 2007 · By Shane Edwards
People like Mark Steyn are adamant in their opposition to gun control in the wake of the awful tragedy of the Virginia Tech Massacre. Many other bloggers whom I normally love to read have made similar statements, suggesting that it is more liberal use of force that we should be calling for, not tightened restrictions on weapons.
I tend to agree, to a point. This is a huge departure for me. I don’t know if you ever read my old blogs, but I have been pretty thoroughly convinced of Christian nonviolence in the tradition of the Anabaptists (Mennonites, though I am not one). However, in the face of naked aggression, people must act to prevent such behaviour for continuing unchecked, out of love for both the perpetrator of the violence and for the potential victims.
But that is all an aside. What I really wanted to say is that I differ in some bloggers’ idolization of American weapon laws. It seems to me they began for an admirable purpose (to defend the Republic from those who would end their newfound freedom, ca. 1776) but have been perverted from those purposes to an uncontrolled and unwise freedom.
Take the VT situation. The perpetrator was not a citizen of America. Should foreign nationals be able to have unfettered access to dangerous weapons? I should think not, if the situation is really about protecting America and Americans. It doesn’t make any sense to arm potential enemies of the state. (Please note: I am not suggesting Koreans are enemies of the state, only that such access could allow nationals of declared enemies of America the same access.)
In another train of thought (I’ve got a whole network of trains today!), I just returned from Yakima, WA for the weekend. I must admit, I have spent little time in the USA outside of the traditional tourist enclaves of Los Angeles and Hawaii. For me, this was an eyeopening trip into what I believe is true America. I drove through a lot of small towns, and visited with people from all over Eastern Washington state. What I heard was, to me as a Canadian, shocking.
We were visiting at a nice church that had been there for about 30 years. They owned a warehouse type structure across the street, purchased for the youth to play games in. They had a big air slide in place for visiting kids to play on, and my kids had a blast. However as I entered, I noticed something funny about the door: the glass had bullet holes in it. Eight of them. Large calibre.
I asked around. One man, in his 40′s explained. There are youth gangs here. Out in the middle of farmland, hundreds of miles from the nearest city. He says they “usually keep to shooting each other” but told me of a horrific event a couple of years before where a woman and her child were shot, the result of a speculated “gang initiation” ritual. He said windows like this get shot out all the time, though it is rare that church buildings get hit.
I used to live in a town much the same size as Sunnyside. The only bulletholes I ever saw out there were in signposts in areas where hunters would go, nowhere near the city itself. Nobody ever was shot at in city limits. The same is true today – my folks still live there.
I live in probably one of the top crime areas in Canada, in a major urban area, and I can identify in part with this reality. If hick town America has the same kind of crime as Surrey in Canada, then I am really rethinking some of the admiration I used to have for America. I used to think that living out in the countryside there would be peaceful, perhaps more peaceful than Canada because you could shoot trespassers if they didn’t stay away. Turns out that violence does beget violence.
One other thing people have been saying: that the campus was a gun-free zone, and so was easy pickings. I think that is the danger of a permissive weapon culture surrounding enclaves of restricted weapon culture: it leaves the restricted vulnerable. When everyone, everywhere is in the same boat, the danger I think is not as great. Yes, there have been school shootings in Canada, and that’s sad. I don’t think we can say that those shootings would not have happened if everyone in Canada were packing heat. Think about it: even in the States, banks still get robbed. Most people do not walk around with a loaded weapon. Permissive gun laws do not solve crime because most people are law-abiding and feel secure enough with police and security forces that they don’t feel the need to arm themselves.
Is the solution to ban all small arms? I don’t think so. Is the solution to arm everyone, so nobody gets hurt? Talk about a fallacy! I think it is time to cool the rhetoric and think about the issue seriously. We’re not talking about guns here. We’re talking about crazy people with a lack of respect for human life. How do you combat THAT?
I agree with most of your wading here. However, your conclusions are a little weak and rhetorical.
You seem to equate law-abiding with feeling secure and a willingness to trust the police exclusively for defence of persons. I submit that these have nothing to do with each other. One can be completely law-abiding, and still feel insecure, and/or have a desire to carry a legal firearm.
I agree that it would be counter-productive to arm everyone. However, it seems reasonable that there would be a strong deterrent effect to arm certain selective citizens. The police cannot be everywhere, and are almost never at the scene where they would be able to premt a crime.
Armed citizens would have to be willing, and be trained in the lawful use of force, as well as in the use of a firearm. They would have to be screened to eliminate the mentally unstable or the criminal. I would expect the proportion of persons both willing and qualified to carry a firearm would be no more than a few percent of the adult population.
If only 1% of the VT population of 25,000 souls had been armed, the murderer in question would almost certainly have encountered armed resistance, and at least given the victims a fighting chance.
Good thoughts. I wasn’t really framing any arguments, just making some personal observations.
I agree with reasonable restrictions on firearms access. I do not agree with allowing any tom, dick and harry to pick one up. I am somewhat disconcerted at the not-so-veiled suggestion of vigilante justice becoming a larger part of our culture. Not so sure what that would do to the overall law abiding nature of our society. Would it simply degenerate even the good guys into another “gang”?
And with regards to arming 1% of the student body at VT. I agree more with Kathy Shaidle, who has made strong calls for us to wake up from our cowering and defend each other. Had more of those students had attitudes similar to the victims of Flight 93, the shooting might have ended a lot sooner. It has been noted elsewhere that a lot of the wounds inflicted on victims and survivors were from defensive postures. Who was fighting back? Nobody. How much sooner would the slaughter have ended if a few more of the men in those classes acted like men?
Where is the ACLU , I thought they would have fought the unfair gun law that took away the RIGHT’s of good students to arm themselves while on the VT Campus.
Funny how when Schools want to check students for weapons the ACLU screams of RIGHT’s violations , so now 32 unarmed civilian are dead and the killer had his ROGHT’s protected to not be searched .
Thanks ACLU , I just hope you defend that stance when shooters are coming to your offices and after several killings you won’t search people entering because it violates their RIGHT’s.
“How much sooner would the slaughter have ended if a few more of the men in those classes acted like men?”
You have got to be kidding me, right? I am sure you are one big man, Shane, but I am not sure anyone knows what they would do until the moment arrives.
You know…
In Canada, the Charter guarantees us the right to own a gun.
Just read Section Seven. And you’ll understand.
If y’all need a little help understanding how that is so, then mosey on over to my post:
http://thecanadiansentinel.blo.....an-at.html
Yes, I’m dead serious about this.
If SSM can be claimed to be “in the Charter” but one cannot find anything supporting this contention within the document, and abortion can be asserted as being guaranteed as a right by the Charter, which doesn’t mention that either, then…
It’s very easy to make the case that “security of the person” entails that we must necessarily never be denied the right to security of our persons, which logically and reasonably does indeed include possession of a concealed handgun should the unspeakable happen, such as recently at Vermont Tech.
Absolutely. Gun ownership and possession in public is a human right guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Supreme Court must eventually deal with this issue and strike down the ban on handguns in Canada as unconstitutional, as violating the inalienable right to security of the person.
Who’s progressive now?
“…should the unspeakable happen, such as recently at Vermont Tech.”
Oh, no! Vermont Tech, too? Is there no end to the violence?
A zen type koan for you;
Schools are “gun free zones”. Gun shows are not.
Mass murders with guns are usually at school, not gun shows.
On the question of 1% of the VT population being armed, do not exclude the teachers from your thoughts. Teachers are the logical people to be allowed to carry concealed firearms. In the past decade armed teachers were involved in “school shootings” where they stopped armed aggressors. With minimal deaths… but very little coverage by mainstream media.
“In the past decade armed teachers were involved in “school shootings†where they stopped armed aggressors. With minimal deaths… but very little coverage by mainstream media.”
Tons of things happened in the past (like the war between humans and those big reptilian things about 5000 years ago). Looks like someone needs to post some sources to make claims like this resonate.
[...] the comments, Grumpy Old Man makes a solid case for gun-totin’ academics: Schools are “gun free zonesâ€Â. Gun shows are [...]
Oh, no! Vermont Tech, too? Is there no end to the violence? -Balbulican
–Your point being…?
Don’t worry, Scenty. Lots of people people get Vermont confused with Virginia. One way to tell them apart: Vermont has green hills, Virginia’s are blue. Does that help?
““How much sooner would the slaughter have ended if a few more of the men in those classes acted like men?â€Â
You have got to be kidding me, right? I am sure you are one big man, Shane, but I am not sure anyone knows what they would do until the moment arrives.”
If you had read Kathy Shaidle you would know I am quoting her.
As for me, you can go ahead and make fun, if you find it impossible to believe that anyone could act selflessly for others, but that is your loss with such a low view of humanity.
[...] thank goodness New Life Church wasn’t a gun free zone (and how sad that Virginia Tech was): Jeanne Assam, a church member who volunteers as a security guard, shot and killed Murray, [...]
In reading over the comments it appears evident that those most adamantly opposed to gun ownership have never owned a gun and most importantly have not learned how to use a gun properly. These people are evidently leading a life as a typical liberal who exists in an egocentric vaccum where reality exists only in their wants and needs and does not extend outside their limited and sometimes pathetic existence. Factually, there are over 2 million instances every year where people defend successfully their lives and property by utilizing a firearm. Also inevitably, those states which already have draconian gun laws are the states which have the recognizably highest crime rate. Hitler would have been proud of some of the remarks made and Christopher Dobbs is certainly familiar with Hitler’s gun control laws having searched the German Archives looking for a format for such people control.