Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Tools of destruction
My blog friend, Barb, commented on my post yesterday where I suggested limiting "tools with which people can express intense anger and misery." She pointed out that kitchen knives are under the gun (heh) in the U.K. and she legitimately questioned how much we can limit tools' availability.
I completely agree that we should not over-react to events like yesterday's. In fact I think the urge to control things is already going a tad nutty. Unfortunately a healthy, engaged, interesting life simply includes occasional risks and dangers. For example, I don't think we should ban peanut butter - we should teach people to be careful. I don't think we should ban bicycles - we should teach riders to wear helmets.
I realize there's lots more to events like this than how they're done and with what. The person or persons are disturbed and angry, probably sick, certainly unstable. Psychological help before the fact would be the best solution, of course. So would an upbringing that resulted in a confident, secure, happy person. But some things are improbable or even impossible, or just too late. The fact of the matter is that many people don't live up to their own idea of ideal (hey, I'd love to be tall thin and blonde) and are, in fact, flawed in any number of ways.
Which brings me back to a more practical point. What I mean by "tools" is things that can do enormous damage very quickly and very easily. Using a knife to kill or injure someone takes a lot of time and effort, whereas using an automatic weapon with dozens of rounds of ammunition to kill or injure whole bunches of people takes very little effort or time. I know I'm treading close to suggesting that we limit our personal "right" to own guns but for the life of me I cannot think of one good reason why any ordinary person needs -- or has a "right" -- to own an automatic weapon. Nor can I understand why gun shows are exempt from background-checking buyers. And I realize that guns don't kill people because it's the people who have the guns who are doing the killing. But if they couldn't use an automatic gun, they would have to turn to more deliberate and difficult methods . . . which might slow them down enough to stop the whole thing. Why must being an American include the fairly frequent and not very remote possibility of being mowed down by lunatics?
I completely agree that we should not over-react to events like yesterday's. In fact I think the urge to control things is already going a tad nutty. Unfortunately a healthy, engaged, interesting life simply includes occasional risks and dangers. For example, I don't think we should ban peanut butter - we should teach people to be careful. I don't think we should ban bicycles - we should teach riders to wear helmets.
I realize there's lots more to events like this than how they're done and with what. The person or persons are disturbed and angry, probably sick, certainly unstable. Psychological help before the fact would be the best solution, of course. So would an upbringing that resulted in a confident, secure, happy person. But some things are improbable or even impossible, or just too late. The fact of the matter is that many people don't live up to their own idea of ideal (hey, I'd love to be tall thin and blonde) and are, in fact, flawed in any number of ways.
Which brings me back to a more practical point. What I mean by "tools" is things that can do enormous damage very quickly and very easily. Using a knife to kill or injure someone takes a lot of time and effort, whereas using an automatic weapon with dozens of rounds of ammunition to kill or injure whole bunches of people takes very little effort or time. I know I'm treading close to suggesting that we limit our personal "right" to own guns but for the life of me I cannot think of one good reason why any ordinary person needs -- or has a "right" -- to own an automatic weapon. Nor can I understand why gun shows are exempt from background-checking buyers. And I realize that guns don't kill people because it's the people who have the guns who are doing the killing. But if they couldn't use an automatic gun, they would have to turn to more deliberate and difficult methods . . . which might slow them down enough to stop the whole thing. Why must being an American include the fairly frequent and not very remote possibility of being mowed down by lunatics?
Labels: headlines, reflections
Permalink | 
| posted by jau at 9:07 AM
ligneus — at 10:04 PM, April 17, 2007:
jau — at 12:28 AM, April 18, 2007:
— at 8:40 AM, April 18, 2007:
jau — at 11:59 AM, April 18, 2007:
jau — at 12:01 PM, April 18, 2007:
Genuine Lustre — at 10:02 PM, April 20, 2007:
jau — at 10:29 PM, April 20, 2007:
jau — at 10:30 PM, April 20, 2007:
| posted by jau at 9:07 AM
12 more:
ligneus — at 10:04 PM, April 17, 2007:
One thing that limits the use of guns is the possibility that the person you are going to use it on might also have a gun. Some of the students at this college were licensed to carry guns but were forbidden to carry them on campus. Which is too bad.
In UK after the Dunblane massacre the British gov. brought in even more stringent laws against gun ownership than they already had and since then gun crime has exploded [ha ha]. It's pretty certain there that the people you are shooting at won't be able to shoot back. You also have to be very careful how you fight back if you're attacked, injure the attacker and you can wind up in jail. Which is a great encouragement to the criminals.
The best suggestion I've seen in the case of school shootings is training sessions for the students to immediately swarm the gunman, better to have two or three killed than thirty. Call it the 'Let's roll' system.
I think colleges should have a list of those who own guns, then in the case of such a nut as this one, he could be headed off at the pass.s
In UK after the Dunblane massacre the British gov. brought in even more stringent laws against gun ownership than they already had and since then gun crime has exploded [ha ha]. It's pretty certain there that the people you are shooting at won't be able to shoot back. You also have to be very careful how you fight back if you're attacked, injure the attacker and you can wind up in jail. Which is a great encouragement to the criminals.
The best suggestion I've seen in the case of school shootings is training sessions for the students to immediately swarm the gunman, better to have two or three killed than thirty. Call it the 'Let's roll' system.
I think colleges should have a list of those who own guns, then in the case of such a nut as this one, he could be headed off at the pass.s
< home >
jau — at 12:28 AM, April 18, 2007:
I love the "swarming" idea - it sounds do-able and so unvictim-like. Love it.
How would heading loonies off at the pass work? I think, sadly, that sounds like a good way to get some dead people.
Usually I'm a strong believer in letting things happen as they will and not trying to control them. But I feel dubious about idea of letting everyone have guns. Few of us is balanced or clear-thinking enough to resist grabbing a gun at moments of horrible stress - and then what? Guns make it too easy to do horrible things. Seems simple: no gun, no one gets shot. Surely there are other, less almost certainly fatal, solutions.
How would heading loonies off at the pass work? I think, sadly, that sounds like a good way to get some dead people.
Usually I'm a strong believer in letting things happen as they will and not trying to control them. But I feel dubious about idea of letting everyone have guns. Few of us is balanced or clear-thinking enough to resist grabbing a gun at moments of horrible stress - and then what? Guns make it too easy to do horrible things. Seems simple: no gun, no one gets shot. Surely there are other, less almost certainly fatal, solutions.
< home >
— at 8:40 AM, April 18, 2007:
I guess by heading off at the pass I meant that if the school knew that a very disturbed student like this one had a gun permit then it could ask that the permit be revoked.
The problem with banning or removing guns is that it just isn't possible, you finish up the way it is in UK where only the criminals have guns. There isn't a 'solution', there are criminals and nutcases out there, until you can eliminate them, people are going to get killed. The only practical thing is to at least be in a position to defend yourself, if you remove that possibility then it starts to be open season for the said criminals and nutcases.h
The problem with banning or removing guns is that it just isn't possible, you finish up the way it is in UK where only the criminals have guns. There isn't a 'solution', there are criminals and nutcases out there, until you can eliminate them, people are going to get killed. The only practical thing is to at least be in a position to defend yourself, if you remove that possibility then it starts to be open season for the said criminals and nutcases.h
< home >
jau — at 11:59 AM, April 18, 2007:
Ligneus (or should I say Tony?!), I take your points but I cannot shake the sense that a wild west sort of atmosphere in which many people have guns is likely to result in people using their guns often because they are an easy way to show strength.
I feel sure that Cho would not have been deflected from his plan regardless of what he expected to encounter. He wanted to kill and be killed, even if he had to do it all himself. With more people having guns in cases like this, a great big battle would ensue and many people would shoot at each other until the smoke cleared and bodies could be counted.
Lower capital crime is such a complicated subject, upon which I have done considerable research and gathered zillions of statistics. It is not simply a matter of gun ownership or lack thereof, capital punishment or lack thereof, but many many factors including GNP, general social tone, facial make-up, etc., etc.
Maybe we should start a new blog just for this subject! (Just kidding.)
I feel sure that Cho would not have been deflected from his plan regardless of what he expected to encounter. He wanted to kill and be killed, even if he had to do it all himself. With more people having guns in cases like this, a great big battle would ensue and many people would shoot at each other until the smoke cleared and bodies could be counted.
Lower capital crime is such a complicated subject, upon which I have done considerable research and gathered zillions of statistics. It is not simply a matter of gun ownership or lack thereof, capital punishment or lack thereof, but many many factors including GNP, general social tone, facial make-up, etc., etc.
Maybe we should start a new blog just for this subject! (Just kidding.)
< home >
jau — at 12:01 PM, April 18, 2007:
Uh, that would be racial make-up. Sometimes typos are fun! (Maybe facial make-up is true, too, come to think of it.)
< home >
Genuine Lustre — at 10:02 PM, April 20, 2007:
A knife only has to penetrate 3/4 of an inch to get to your heart -- it too is a tool -- ask the villagers in Darfur.
< home >
jau — at 10:29 PM, April 20, 2007:
On knives, two things. I looked it up and the UK spate of knife assaults has not resulted in one fatality, so that's a big difference. And people can't be mowed down by a someone with a knife. Just saying.
This is one of those subjects where some feel (a) is true and others feel (b) is true. I guess the REAL solutions are in other areas such as better follow-through on counseling and better community cohesiveness both in schools and in towns.
This is one of those subjects where some feel (a) is true and others feel (b) is true. I guess the REAL solutions are in other areas such as better follow-through on counseling and better community cohesiveness both in schools and in towns.
< home >
jau — at 10:30 PM, April 20, 2007:
P.S. Favorite Apron, I absolutely LOVE your tag line ("We'll see if tea and buns can't make the world a better place . . .") and I totally concur that tea and buns will make a better world. Thanks very much for that thought!
< home >
< home
< home >