American obsession with gun

[Ian_Lee]

On the aftermath of the shooting at Virginia Tech, I watched many TV special reports and generally the comments are like the following:

This is the price Americans have to pay (and it will happen again) if we want to preserve our freedom.

I would say this is typical twisted American logic.

[Rachel_S]

I don't think it's so much that the logic is twisted, just that it's not really logic at all. You have two choices: 1) you can fight against the proliferation of guns amongst the public by supporting gun control legislation and fighting for extra background checks, tighter restrictions, etc., or 2) you can be in support of laws that allow individuals to maintain and use firearms and fight for fewer restrictions. That's all.

All these people who say that the only way to "preserve their rights" is to keep guns on the street is just plain ignorant. And I'll be the first to admit, as an American, that many Americans are (though there are ignorant people everywhere, so that's nothing new). People who fight against gun control are 1) taking it upon themselves to change norms that they feel are wrong and/or outdated, 2) reinterpreting the Constitution for the present day (as was intended by the founders - laws from the 18th century aren't going to be applicable forever, after all), and 3) invoking their right to use freedom of speech and Consitutionally approved channels of communication to make changes they see fit. There is nothing in arguing for gun control that conflicts with maintaining one's rights. And the same goes for the flip side.

Gun control in America is not an obsession, but rather a weighty issue. And with people on both sides of the aisles, there are bound to be disagreements. What conclusion they come to sometimes is severely limited by what I term "the PC-spin." But extreme statements aside, events like the shootings at Virginia Tech will at least force each person to examine his or her own opinions and decide whether they will hold up to the scrutiny or not.

[Ding Yiyi]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That is the text of the second amendment, from which both sides of the gun debate get their platforms. The entire US Bill of Rights

The people in support of gun control focus on the "A well regulated militia" part, arguing that as long as there is a well-regulated militia or army in the United States there is no reason that private citizens should be allowed firearms. The people who argue for less gun control focus on the "the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" part, arguing that based on the text of the Constitution, we are all allowed to own, maintain and use firearms without governmental infringement.

Obviously, there are varying degrees to these arguments, especially those in support of gun ownership but against a lassiez-faire approach towards gun sales. My personal beliefs are that gun ownership is not necessarily a bad thing, but I do believe that there should be a federal-level background check for people the law has deemed unworthy for gun ownership (violent felons, people with proven violent mental disorders, etc.).

[xianu]

One argument I have heard is a more paranoid anti-establishment one, claiming that gun control is the establishment's way of maintaining control over the people. This camp argues that "the establishment" wishes to maintain strict control over and limit the possession and sale of firearms so that they can "keep the people in fear" of the well-armed militia that they maintain. If the right to bear arms is taken away from the people, then the possibility of being able to revolt agains the establishment is also taken away, ergo, the unstated "checks and balances" system between "we the people" and the establishment will also be removed. On the one hand I can clearly see the point of this argument for maintaining the right for an individual to arm her or himself, but, I personally am freaked out by guns, and wonder how relevant that argument is, anymore. Seems kind of like a 60's throwback kind of argument, and I am the first to distrust any authority figure. As far as whether this is the "price we have to pay," that is absolute rubbish. This isn't the price americans pay for the right to bear arms, but the price we pay all over the world, when any single individual or group of individuals gets overly selfish and self-righteous - and i think this applies to the perpetrators of any violent act as well as the victims. The virginia tech kid, as well as the columbine kids were all messed up psychologically, and had overly large egos, that somehow convinced them that they were the ones that needed to act to "right" whatever situation they felt needed to be "righted." (or in some way make a statement about their perceived injustices). Maybe this is too simplistic an argument, but so is saying that these isolated violent impulses are the result of the consitutional right to bear arms.

[flameproof]

China would be sooo much safer if everybody had a gun!

[loopline]

really, I mean guns don't kill people....

People kill people.

Guns are just intruments.

Guns we allowed in the constitution so that people could protect themselves from the government. Its freedom...

MAtt

[muyongshi]

really, I mean guns don't kill people....

People kill people.

Guns are just intruments.

Guns we allowed in the constitution so that people could protect themselves from the government. Its freedom...

MAtt

Weapons of any sort are both tools and dangerous. A pen can kill someone, a firearm just makes it a tad bit easier. I think what needs to be done is to get the weapons out of the hands of the freaks and idiots, cut down on side-arm sales (i.e. handguns) and allow the rest of us normal people to maintain our recreational ability. NO side-arm was ever invented for the purpose of recreation (and no a shooting range is not a recreational activity- there places to train). Rifles have many recreational usages and I am all for them. Oh and by the way, before everyone keeps beating up on the US we are far from the worst when it comes to violent death by fire-arm.

So maybe we should call it people control rather than gun control huh?

And the thing about militia- look at the history of the way the militia was run. It is nowhere close to it's current day form. As well as it lists the militia and the people separately. The constitution says "we the people" just as this amendment says "the people". It is not refereing to just the militia. If it was it would omit "the people".

[simonlaing]

The story I remember most about the West virginia situation was there was a visiting chinese professor who when he saw the shooter coming down the hall, closed the door and barricaded the down by using his body as a wedge.

The shooter tried openning the door and foricing it open. When he realized people were holding it on the other side he shot through the door but too high as the people were sitting down blocking the door.

The shooter then moved onto the next classroom. For visiting grad student professor this seemed pretty heroic.

Also there were huge parades in Korea afterwards saying they were sorry and not all Koreans were wacko killers.

The other this was that the reason why the gun shop didn't refuse to sell him the gun (since the court had said he was mentally unstable) was because the form for courts and mental health issues in west virginia is different that the federal form that many other states use. (We can suspect the NRA and gun interest groups helped the forms be different and thus difficult to plug into the computer.)

Also I want to say that people in Texas and parts of the South are more proud of gun ownership than people in my region of the North East.

Anyway you look at it, it was a tragedy and sad all around.

Simon