On Samurai Swords and Gun Control
So I think everyone at Hopkins has posted something about this story on FaceBook, but for those of you not living in Baltimore, a burglar was killed with a samurai sword -- yes, a samurai sword -- by an undergraduate student of Johns Hopkins early this morning just three blocks from where I am now sitting.
There are still a lot of questions and conflicting reports, but you can read the Baltimore Sun's take here:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-sword0915,0,4027961.story
Obviously, it is too early to say, based on just one witness, the killer, the facts of the situation; but as the burglar was just released from prison two days ago, it is likely that this was an act of self-defense, as the student has claimed.
The issue of the right to bear arms in this country has come up a lot recently with the changing political sphere. I know a lot of you are actually going out and purchasing handguns, in fear that that right may soon be taken away.
I am in favor of some gun ownership restrictions -- I don't see any reason why a citizen needs a bazooka or a machine gun -- but I do not think taking away the right of citizens to own handguns will have good results.
I'm well aware that, when written up, the right to bear arms had less to do with self-defense and more to do with defending against a corrupt government, but the fact of the matter is that people want to be able to defend themselves if attacked. In an ideal world, cops could instantly appear wherever there is crime, but it's not an ideal world. While I am highly opposed to vigilantism, unfortunately self-defense is going to occur, and self-defense is not vigilantism.
Where am I going with this?
What I think will happen if gun rights are taken away is that people will resort to defending themselves in other ways -- such as baseball bats, knives,... and samurai swords. If you want to stop people from killing people -- even in self-defense -- you have to remove people, not guns.
Do we really want this?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think most people would rather die from being shot than from having their chest sliced open and hand nearly severed off. (The robber in the present case died from blood loss due to the latter.) Perhaps it is just a Western way of thinking, but it seems somewhat more barbaric to club or hack someone to death than to shoot them.
I'm just pretending I didn't fall behind in blogging again, by the way.
Comment link for Facebook readers
There are still a lot of questions and conflicting reports, but you can read the Baltimore Sun's take here:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-sword0915,0,4027961.story
Obviously, it is too early to say, based on just one witness, the killer, the facts of the situation; but as the burglar was just released from prison two days ago, it is likely that this was an act of self-defense, as the student has claimed.
The issue of the right to bear arms in this country has come up a lot recently with the changing political sphere. I know a lot of you are actually going out and purchasing handguns, in fear that that right may soon be taken away.
I am in favor of some gun ownership restrictions -- I don't see any reason why a citizen needs a bazooka or a machine gun -- but I do not think taking away the right of citizens to own handguns will have good results.
I'm well aware that, when written up, the right to bear arms had less to do with self-defense and more to do with defending against a corrupt government, but the fact of the matter is that people want to be able to defend themselves if attacked. In an ideal world, cops could instantly appear wherever there is crime, but it's not an ideal world. While I am highly opposed to vigilantism, unfortunately self-defense is going to occur, and self-defense is not vigilantism.
Where am I going with this?
What I think will happen if gun rights are taken away is that people will resort to defending themselves in other ways -- such as baseball bats, knives,... and samurai swords. If you want to stop people from killing people -- even in self-defense -- you have to remove people, not guns.
Do we really want this?
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think most people would rather die from being shot than from having their chest sliced open and hand nearly severed off. (The robber in the present case died from blood loss due to the latter.) Perhaps it is just a Western way of thinking, but it seems somewhat more barbaric to club or hack someone to death than to shoot them.
I'm just pretending I didn't fall behind in blogging again, by the way.
Comment link for Facebook readers