(no subject)
Another shoot from the hip solution
Robert Snyder / Second Reference
Whatever place it was in Seung-Hui Cho's dark heart that brought him to conclude that the torments he endured throughout his life should be met with violence is not too far removed from a proposal being weighed in the wake of the young man's shooting rampage that would allow college students to arm themselves and carry concealed weapons on campus.
They're both borne of madness decked out as an instinct for self-preservation. But the second one, because it's being proposed by what are otherwise rational folks and has the support of a number of guns-rights organizations, including the 6,000-member Virginia Citizens Defense League, has already grown legs and may grow more.
To hear Virginia Delegate Todd Gilbert tell it, arming students at Virginia Polytechnic Institute would have stopped Cho dead in his tracks.
"The only way you stop people like that is with like force," Gilbert told the Christian Science Monitor last week. "This guy ... certainly must have known he was entering a gun-free zone."
While a bill proposed by Gilbert in 2006 that would have allowed students older than 21 to carry concealed weapons on campus never made it out of a subcommittee of the Virginia General Assembly, a similar measure passed in Utah, and was even later upheld by that state's Supreme Court, according to the Monitor.
To opponents of gun control, letting students arm themselves may seem the most natural of responses to last week's tragedy. 'Students have a desire to protect themselves,' said VCDL President Philip Van Cleave, and after all, the rules as they stand failed; Cho was able to
purchase his guns despite a federal law that prohibits anyone who has been declared mentally ill from doing so.
It's weaknesses like that in the law that embolden the Second Amendment set, such as columnist Charles Krauthammer, who in a recent opinion piece was already anticipating the "inevitable clucking and scolding abroad about America's gun lax laws," and by Republicans who were perfectly willing to refrain from backing away from an amendment to a bill that would have have let the seams out of Washington, D.C.'s handgun restrictions, knowing full well the National Rifle Association was monitoring the votes of their Democratic colleagues across the aisle. Democrats, for their part, dodged the bullet and managed to keep from having to vote against the bill, thanks to some fancy parliamentary footwork by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
And despite growing evidence that the country favors some type of handgun regulations that do not mean taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding Americans, we're always just one lull from the violence away from being able to backburner any calls for sensible handgun policies, such as waiting periods or requiring police permits.
Van Cleave evidently doesn't see much success in those measures as a solution and, in getting on
board the idea of well-armed college-wide student militias, confidently predicts the failure of gun control legislation.
"Gun control only works with the good guys," Van Cleave told the Monitor. "Good people obey the laws."
That is, until they don't. And what of a college student, or anybody, who may not initiate a rampage but nurses in his own heart a deep desire to take out one who would? Is he to be fully trusted with not just access to, but the right to carry a handgun?
Van Cleave's proposal to arm ourselves to the teeth to stay alive is not the way to a less-violent America. Sensible and responsible leaders should instead look at last week's tragedy and ask, "How can we make guns less a factor in our society in order to keep the threat
of violence away from those we cherish most?"
There are so many holes in that argument I don't really know where to begin, but I'll give it a shot.
1: Inflammatory words used in the beginning paragraphs; I'll let that one slide, since I've been guilt of it in the past.
------
2: "Embolden the Second Amendment set?" "Embolden?" Pardon me, but shouldn't a part of our Bill of Rights get due credit? There are some who seem to think that it has no place in today's world, but if that's the case, why don't we get rid of some others? Why don't we toss #3? When was the last time forced lodging of soldiers was a problem, 1865? How about #8? Such a loose definition; who defines "cruel and unusual" anyway, the ACLU? #9 and #10 are just as ambiguous; let's get rid of those as well, since it would eliminate all the debating and let the politicians concentrate on their jobs. #4, #5, and #6 would speed up trials exponentially, since they would eliminate all the technicalities defense lawyers love pulling to get people like O.J. off the hook.
Here's a fun one: #1. Free speech is dead. Just look at Don Imus; he pointed out what's actually pretty damn obvious (some guy named Troi Torain aka "Star" said much the same thing back in 2001, but didn't get such hot press) and got fired. Sure, we can't be arrested for saying what's on our minds (except in rare cases like some nutcase yelling that he's going to kill the President or something), but neither are we protected from persecution for saying what we think. We have become so P.C. that the society that was built around the idea of free speech is now stifling it. It has become "say what you think...so long as it is within acceptable societal norms;" we have become our own Big Brother--just ask Imus.
Freedom of religion? If this country is built around freedom of religion, why is a primarily Judeo-Christian community prohibited from putting an engraving or whatever of the Ten Commandments on a courthouse door? After all, this country was primarily founded by Christians, and there are references all around the federal buildings in D.C.: a set of the Commandments on the doors to the Supreme Court; a bust of Moses in the House chamber; a Christian chaplain on the House payroll who has opened every session since 1789--all but one has been Protestant until the most recent, who is a Roman Catholic (the anomaly was a Universalist from 1895-1921); the words "In God We Trust" on every piece of money printed by the Treasury. I could go on, but you get the picture.
Freedom of assembly? Most municipalities require a permit to gather in a public place--there's the states and cities trampling on the Constitution instead of the Feds for a change. If that's the case, that throws the 14th Amendment out the window too--that's the one that says "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
**Note: I don't necessarily believe we should get rid of these Amendments; I'm just playing devil's advocate. And it's fun to do.
------
#3: I love the paragraph where he responds to Phil's comment that only the good people obey the laws with "That is, until they don't." So...we're to be afraid of everyone who owns a gun, even if that person has proven him- or herself to be of good character, just because they might someday snap? I thought the phrase "going postal" was un-P.C., but here it's hinted at. Maybe we should be afraid of people who own cars too, since they might conceivably make the bad decision to drink and drive.
"And what of a college student, or anybody, who may not initiate a rampage but nurses in his own heart a deep desire to take out one who would? Is he to be fully trusted with not just access to, but the right to carry a handgun?"? This genius seems to think that a person's desire to protect himself and other innocents is somehow bad. I know I would pop someone who started a rampage near me--I have no desire to get shot by acting like other the other sheeple, and I have no desire to see my friends and loved ones get killed because someone else decided I didn't have the right to defend them.
------
#4: Arming ourselves is not the way to a less-violent America? Maybe not less violent, but less crime. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: crime has gone down in states where concealed carry has been recently legalized--it remains high in states where it is still illegal (New York, Maryland, D.C.). If you were a criminal, would you rather commit your crime in an area where your victim is likely to be armed (Virginia), or in an area you know to be gun-free (D.C.)? The Virginia Tech shooter knew exactly what he was doing.
------
The sad fact remains that it is depressingly easy to kill someone if you really want to, especially if you have no desire to get away afterwards--though that suicidal state of mind is not all that common. Unless the victim(s) have protection like the Secret Service, you stand a better than 50% chance of succeeding. Your chance of getting more than one person at once goes down after the first, but it still remains high; if any or all of your proposed victims are armed, you are more likely to get dead. That is what deters criminals: the possibility of getting his own precious hide shot off. If there's a hint of uncertainty, he will look elsewhere.
...okay I think I've belabored these points long enough. That was fun to write; let's see how the responses go. I've fireproofed by modem and monitor just in case they get a little hot.
Robert Snyder / Second Reference
Whatever place it was in Seung-Hui Cho's dark heart that brought him to conclude that the torments he endured throughout his life should be met with violence is not too far removed from a proposal being weighed in the wake of the young man's shooting rampage that would allow college students to arm themselves and carry concealed weapons on campus.
They're both borne of madness decked out as an instinct for self-preservation. But the second one, because it's being proposed by what are otherwise rational folks and has the support of a number of guns-rights organizations, including the 6,000-member Virginia Citizens Defense League, has already grown legs and may grow more.
To hear Virginia Delegate Todd Gilbert tell it, arming students at Virginia Polytechnic Institute would have stopped Cho dead in his tracks.
"The only way you stop people like that is with like force," Gilbert told the Christian Science Monitor last week. "This guy ... certainly must have known he was entering a gun-free zone."
While a bill proposed by Gilbert in 2006 that would have allowed students older than 21 to carry concealed weapons on campus never made it out of a subcommittee of the Virginia General Assembly, a similar measure passed in Utah, and was even later upheld by that state's Supreme Court, according to the Monitor.
To opponents of gun control, letting students arm themselves may seem the most natural of responses to last week's tragedy. 'Students have a desire to protect themselves,' said VCDL President Philip Van Cleave, and after all, the rules as they stand failed; Cho was able to
purchase his guns despite a federal law that prohibits anyone who has been declared mentally ill from doing so.
It's weaknesses like that in the law that embolden the Second Amendment set, such as columnist Charles Krauthammer, who in a recent opinion piece was already anticipating the "inevitable clucking and scolding abroad about America's gun lax laws," and by Republicans who were perfectly willing to refrain from backing away from an amendment to a bill that would have have let the seams out of Washington, D.C.'s handgun restrictions, knowing full well the National Rifle Association was monitoring the votes of their Democratic colleagues across the aisle. Democrats, for their part, dodged the bullet and managed to keep from having to vote against the bill, thanks to some fancy parliamentary footwork by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
And despite growing evidence that the country favors some type of handgun regulations that do not mean taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding Americans, we're always just one lull from the violence away from being able to backburner any calls for sensible handgun policies, such as waiting periods or requiring police permits.
Van Cleave evidently doesn't see much success in those measures as a solution and, in getting on
board the idea of well-armed college-wide student militias, confidently predicts the failure of gun control legislation.
"Gun control only works with the good guys," Van Cleave told the Monitor. "Good people obey the laws."
That is, until they don't. And what of a college student, or anybody, who may not initiate a rampage but nurses in his own heart a deep desire to take out one who would? Is he to be fully trusted with not just access to, but the right to carry a handgun?
Van Cleave's proposal to arm ourselves to the teeth to stay alive is not the way to a less-violent America. Sensible and responsible leaders should instead look at last week's tragedy and ask, "How can we make guns less a factor in our society in order to keep the threat
of violence away from those we cherish most?"
There are so many holes in that argument I don't really know where to begin, but I'll give it a shot.
1: Inflammatory words used in the beginning paragraphs; I'll let that one slide, since I've been guilt of it in the past.
------
2: "Embolden the Second Amendment set?" "Embolden?" Pardon me, but shouldn't a part of our Bill of Rights get due credit? There are some who seem to think that it has no place in today's world, but if that's the case, why don't we get rid of some others? Why don't we toss #3? When was the last time forced lodging of soldiers was a problem, 1865? How about #8? Such a loose definition; who defines "cruel and unusual" anyway, the ACLU? #9 and #10 are just as ambiguous; let's get rid of those as well, since it would eliminate all the debating and let the politicians concentrate on their jobs. #4, #5, and #6 would speed up trials exponentially, since they would eliminate all the technicalities defense lawyers love pulling to get people like O.J. off the hook.
Here's a fun one: #1. Free speech is dead. Just look at Don Imus; he pointed out what's actually pretty damn obvious (some guy named Troi Torain aka "Star" said much the same thing back in 2001, but didn't get such hot press) and got fired. Sure, we can't be arrested for saying what's on our minds (except in rare cases like some nutcase yelling that he's going to kill the President or something), but neither are we protected from persecution for saying what we think. We have become so P.C. that the society that was built around the idea of free speech is now stifling it. It has become "say what you think...so long as it is within acceptable societal norms;" we have become our own Big Brother--just ask Imus.
Freedom of religion? If this country is built around freedom of religion, why is a primarily Judeo-Christian community prohibited from putting an engraving or whatever of the Ten Commandments on a courthouse door? After all, this country was primarily founded by Christians, and there are references all around the federal buildings in D.C.: a set of the Commandments on the doors to the Supreme Court; a bust of Moses in the House chamber; a Christian chaplain on the House payroll who has opened every session since 1789--all but one has been Protestant until the most recent, who is a Roman Catholic (the anomaly was a Universalist from 1895-1921); the words "In God We Trust" on every piece of money printed by the Treasury. I could go on, but you get the picture.
Freedom of assembly? Most municipalities require a permit to gather in a public place--there's the states and cities trampling on the Constitution instead of the Feds for a change. If that's the case, that throws the 14th Amendment out the window too--that's the one that says "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
**Note: I don't necessarily believe we should get rid of these Amendments; I'm just playing devil's advocate. And it's fun to do.
------
#3: I love the paragraph where he responds to Phil's comment that only the good people obey the laws with "That is, until they don't." So...we're to be afraid of everyone who owns a gun, even if that person has proven him- or herself to be of good character, just because they might someday snap? I thought the phrase "going postal" was un-P.C., but here it's hinted at. Maybe we should be afraid of people who own cars too, since they might conceivably make the bad decision to drink and drive.
"And what of a college student, or anybody, who may not initiate a rampage but nurses in his own heart a deep desire to take out one who would? Is he to be fully trusted with not just access to, but the right to carry a handgun?"? This genius seems to think that a person's desire to protect himself and other innocents is somehow bad. I know I would pop someone who started a rampage near me--I have no desire to get shot by acting like other the other sheeple, and I have no desire to see my friends and loved ones get killed because someone else decided I didn't have the right to defend them.
------
#4: Arming ourselves is not the way to a less-violent America? Maybe not less violent, but less crime. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: crime has gone down in states where concealed carry has been recently legalized--it remains high in states where it is still illegal (New York, Maryland, D.C.). If you were a criminal, would you rather commit your crime in an area where your victim is likely to be armed (Virginia), or in an area you know to be gun-free (D.C.)? The Virginia Tech shooter knew exactly what he was doing.
------
The sad fact remains that it is depressingly easy to kill someone if you really want to, especially if you have no desire to get away afterwards--though that suicidal state of mind is not all that common. Unless the victim(s) have protection like the Secret Service, you stand a better than 50% chance of succeeding. Your chance of getting more than one person at once goes down after the first, but it still remains high; if any or all of your proposed victims are armed, you are more likely to get dead. That is what deters criminals: the possibility of getting his own precious hide shot off. If there's a hint of uncertainty, he will look elsewhere.
...okay I think I've belabored these points long enough. That was fun to write; let's see how the responses go. I've fireproofed by modem and monitor just in case they get a little hot.