In light of the Virginia Tech shooting, can someone please…

About this Entry
Posted by: loftycomfort Original: 4/19/2007 6:38 PM Views: 124 Comments: 8 eProps: 10 Read Comments Post a Comment Back to Your Xanga Site

Who gave the eProps?
2 eProps from: davidian kayoko Synwpn Femme003 Punkboy

Thursday, April 19, 2007

In light of the Virginia Tech shooting, can someone please explain to me why guns aren't banned in the US please?

Gun proponents tend to have the following two arguments (in red is my view):

The gun is merely the means to commit the crime, hence it should not be banned. Case in point: fertilizer should not be banned just because Timothy McVeigh used it to destroy the Oklahoma City Federal building. The root cause is the perpetrator and the focus should be put on that person. Terry: the main purpose of fertilizer is to grow big fat beets, where as a gun has no other purpose than to kill. What is the logic of NOT banning something of which the sole purpose is to kill? The point of focusing on the perpetrator is completely valid, but what is wrong with taking the means away from him? A counselor does not give a potential killer a knife and expect him to not use it.
A person determined to cause harm to others will not be stopped even if guns were banned. Terry: if we can't stop a twisted mind , then at least we should make it tremendously difficult for him to acquire a gun. If the person has to jump through hoops to obtain a gun, then maybe he could be stopped during that process. As oppose to a scenario in a gun-everywhere society where one could wake up in the morning, brush his teeth, have a coffee, then go buy a gun from the supermarket and shoot everyone in sight.

Comments please.

Posted 4/19/2007 6:38 PM - 124 Views - 10 eProps - 8 comments

recommend
recs0
share
email
sent0

Give eProps or Post a Comment

8 Comments

i'm not sure where i stand on this second amendment issue. i do believe that we should do everything we can to limit the availability of guns given its utility. that said, i am not sure that i support an outright ban of firearms either.

historically speaking, the right to "bear arms" was one of the principal mechanisms that empowered our forefathers to take a stand against GB and create this notion of a free and liberated country. thus, as unfortunate as it may be, the right to bear arms is an ideological foundation of the defense of our freedoms and liberties. this right is what empowers citizens to take a last stand against a potentially tyrannical government has failed its constituents.

personally, i would have a problem with eliminating a citizen's right to bear arms without disarming our police force first. however, since our society is one that is regulated by the fear and threat of applied violence, i doubt that this disarmament will be happening anytime soon.

Posted 4/19/2007 6:58 PM by davidian

- reply

David I agree with you that there is so much history involved in the whole American gun culture, you can't just snap your fingers and be rid of a major facet of your national identity. However, if the rest of the world thinks gun ban is a no-brainer, then there must be some wisdom in that. The American public at some point must start to realize that the ideology that what used to define them, the spirit that bought them prominence, will eventually become a burden on the society (it already has).

Posted 4/19/2007 9:29 PM by loftycomfort - reply

I agree with you. But history repeats itself and I don't think much will change in terms of gun control. The NRA will be out campaigning soon enough.

Posted 4/19/2007 9:55 PM by kayoko

- reply

hmm. takes a lot to bring me back to commenting here, but this is one issue that will. i'm not a rabid pro-gun person, but i do think that there needs to be good controls on how you get a gun. i own a pistol. and have fired several others, including time spent in service.

the problem with taking guns away at this point in time, means that the only people left with guns is the military, police, and the criminals. in fact, being able to own, or carry (as one particular state allows) may lead to people being nicer. nothing like knowing someone might be carrying to stop you from going roadrage on someone.

and in the case of the Virginia Tech shooting, well, the shooter already had a history of mental instability and really should have been undercare, much less be able to get ahold of a gun. when your writing disturbs or upsets teachers and students, well, thats kind of a sign.

also, if campus security (non-police) were carrying and acted to stop some if not all the killings, wouldn't that be a good thing? and going a little further, substitute a student for guard in that example. just some of my thoughts.

Posted 4/20/2007 4:35 AM by Synwpn - reply

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. But I agree with you, that there should be harder ways for certain, unstable people to obtain one. Unfortunately, the right to bear arms is part of the U.S. history of 'rights' as a citizen, but it does get out of control, as proven here.

Damn shame. A few people ruin a privileged right for many.

Posted 4/20/2007 10:37 AM by Femme003

- reply

I completely agree with you. Guns should be illegal/banned period.

Posted 4/20/2007 10:54 AM by Punkboy - reply

Ok, it's your country, it's your constitution. But for the record, the so-called "right" to arm yourselves for the purpose of protection or to overthrow the government sounds like medieval anarchy to me.

Posted 4/20/2007 12:18 PM by loftycomfort - reply

yes, agreed. fighting wars seems like medieval anarchy as well, yet they still happen.

Posted 4/20/2007 3:27 PM by davidian

- reply

Choose Identity

Xanga Network

Anonymous (Sign up for free!)