Thursday, April 19, 2007

one argument

The argument that if everyone had a gun there'd only be two or three people dead falls on its face for me. It's like saying if every country had a nuclear bomb the world would be a safer place.

The truth is if no one had a gun in the VA Tech case, instead of "only" two or three people being dead, no one would be dead.

i seem to have lost my sense of humor. come back later.

2 comments:

anhaga said...

"The truth is if no one had a gun in the VA Tech case, instead of "only" two or three people being dead, no one would be dead."

Handguns are dangerous, and it is better for most people not to have them. But it's not that simple, unfortunately. No guns were used in the Oklahoma City bombing, and lots more people died there than at Virginia Tech. There is no reason this guy couldn't have bought himself a truckload of fertilizer and some diesel fuel, if he couldn't get a gun.

Two points:

1. In the USA, the social networks that should intervene before anger and despair (and whatever else) get out of hand are dismally underfunded and inattentive. When such networks are operated responsibly, they are much more effective at heading off violence than gun laws (cf. Canada).

2. There is no way to make any society, anywhere, completely safe.

SarahJane said...

Hi -
I'm not saying that there aren't other ways to kill people. I'm saying most people shouldn't be able to buy guns. Even a troubled mental history didn't stop this guy, and many people decide to use their guns on the spur of the moment (or as George Bush would say "at the whim of a hat") rather than as some choreographed plan.
Yes, social networks should intervene.
Of course there is no way to make any society completely safe, but I think the American society could be safer. Why did we enact a seatbelt law?
cheers

Related Posts with Thumbnails