we move to canada
The third one is great. I would add dead American soldiers and Iraqis around him as an enhancement.
David, that would be apt. Too true.
CBC Radio, which admittedly is a little leftist (by Canadian standards), did a survey of the media and talk shows in Virgina, as well as doing a number of streeters. They were shocked to find that not only were people opposed to gun controls, it wasn't even being talked about (which did startle me). It's simply a foregone conclusion that the problem wasn't accessibility of guns.The one mention of gun controls they found was in a talk radio station where the host and people calling in were complaining that the policy of teachers and students not carrying guns on campus caused this tragedy to be as big as it was... if only everyone had their own firearm, he would have been taken down quicker.In isolation, in this particular incident, that actually may have been the case. But that certainly doesn't justify having everyone "packing" throughout their day.
The one mention of gun controls they found was in a talk radio station where the host and people calling in were complaining that the policy of teachers and students not carrying guns on campus caused this tragedy to be as big as it was... if only everyone had their own firearm, he would have been taken down quicker.This has been a HUGE topic of debate, rant, derision, etc. in the blogosphere. I'm not sure how widespread the idea really is, but it's become emblematic of the problem.I'm sure there are people in Virginia both for and against gun control. But as long as their congresspeople are in the gun lobby's pocket, it doesn't matter what they want. (Not sure what the CBC's liberal tendencies have to do with it?)
That third cartoon really is perfect.I'm so mad about people saying that thing about "if only everyone in the class had had a gun." What a crock of shit. I'm sure if everyone went around carrying guns, there'd be no violence at all and we'd all be sitting in fields of flowers hugging each other. (While being sure not to accidentally fire the gun of the person we're hugging.) Yeah, right.And then I see Ted Nugent getting airtime, of course. Lemme guess, it's okay to shoot your classmates as long as you eat all their meat and make shelter out of their hides...
I'm so mad about people saying that thing about "if only everyone in the class had had a gun." What a crock of shit. I'm sure if everyone went around carrying guns, there'd be no violence at all and we'd all be sitting in fields of flowers hugging each other. (While being sure not to accidentally fire the gun of the person we're hugging.)Well said, Jere. It's so ludicrous as to defy imagination. In any of the mass killings in the US - there have been so many, we forget most of them - imagine the killer had had no access to automatic weaponry. Had only had a knife. Or even a hunting rifle. It seems pretty clear that fewer people would have been killed, that the assailant could have been wrestled to the ground with less risk. But when it comes to these "debate" in the US, there's little logic in the gunnies' arguments.
Brady Campaign facts on guns in the home.I know the issue raised here isn't guns in the home, but presumably if everyone were carrying weapons, those weapons would be in their homes at some point, probably whenever the people were. Let's see, does the presence of guns make us safer...?
That is what we need - easier access to guns in the aftermath of the tragedy. This is like calling for more wars for peace. While I don't think all wars are unnecessary, but more wars won't result in less wars.Perhaps now is the time to talk about that time I and my family got mugged. That only if I had a gun never crossed my mind.
This is like calling for more wars for peace. While I don't think all wars are unnecessary, but more wars won't result in less wars.Exactly. Believe it or not, I agree with you. :)Perhaps now is the time to talk about that time I and my family got mugged. That only if I had a gun never crossed my mind.A close female friend of mine suggested this to me after I was assaulted - that if I had had a gun in my apartment, it wouldn't have happened. The idea was so ludicrous, I couldn't even address it. (Not to mention that days after someone is raped at knifepoint is not the time to talk about what she might have done to prevent it...!) Later, when I could think more clearly, I found it sad and ignorant that women felt gun ownership could protect them from sexual assault. No doubt a thought borne of fear.
Also David, I hope you do write about the mugging. It's good when people who have been victims of violent crime speak out against the gun insanity. Also, it might be good for you to write about it, for yourself.
The best, most concise take on the "if only everyone had been armed" argument I've seen was at Xoverboard:The part of this I really do find the most truly, unfathomably disgusting are the people who are already, much as they did following the 9/11 attacks, declaring a kneejerk declaration that this all wouldn't have been a problem if everyone on the VT campus was allowed to carry a gun. I truly fail to understand how people with the motor skills required to speak and type can actually believe something like that. If you want to debate gun control, by all means. But to suggest that there would be no potential complications to a situation where a madman with a gun was running around, and everyone else also had guns and knew nothing about the situation except they should kill whoever they see with a gun, is a failure of understanding of the human condition at its highest level. It's not an assault on the Second Amendment to suggest our militia, whatever your definition you think that means, isn't being that well-regulated these days.
(Not sure what the CBC's liberal tendencies have to do with it?)It just speaks to their reaction -- one of shock -- as opposed to one of understanding. I think a large number of self-identified conservatives wouldn't have expressed shock at how the debate was framed.
I think a large number of self-identified conservatives wouldn't have expressed shock at how the debate was framed.Hmm. Interesting. In the US, the issue is not as clear-cut conservative vs liberal as people might think. Law enforcement supports gun control, and they tend to be conservative. If meaningful gun control laws ever get passed in the US, I think it will be from police unions and membership stepping up their efforts.
In Canada, I percieve that conservatives are generally depicted as gun-supporters, mostly due to the fact that rural Canadians did not support the long gun (rifle) registry that was brought in a few years ago and rural Canadians tend to be conservative.Just as a primer to those who are unfamiliar... Canada has had a handgun registry since the 1930s and extremely strict handgun carrying laws since the early 70s. Automatic weapons were also outlawed in the 70s. In the early 2000s the Liberals brought in a (very poorly run) long gun registry which was originally expected to cost $119 Million, with revenues of $117 Million resulting in a net cost of $2 Million. Instead it cost... I kid you not... net $1 Billion. How's that for cost overruns? Participation was not inforced initially due to the huge problems the system had. Then the Conservative Party of Canada got in and, as they promised to scrap the registry, they have been actively not enforcing it by extending amnesties indefinately until they can get a majority in parliament to scrap it.My take on it? Well, at least in Canada, non-automatic long guns are almost never used in crime, whereas handguns are used quite frequently. There may be good cause to revamp the handgun registry, but there really wasn't a need for a long-gun registry. There may eventually be a need for one, but there isn't right now. And the implementation of this registry spoke to huge incompetance of the bureaucracy and heads should roll. But now that it's in and the major costs have passed, might as well enforce it. It's just too bad we went down that road to begin with.
Post a Comment