the requisite serious post
I read somewhere last week that an Italian newspaper called the Virginia Tech shootings "As American as apple pie" or something like that. (I doubt they actually used that idiom, but I can't remmeber what they did say.) The gist was that such a thing is uniquely American.
There is a kernel of truth in that comment. The US does have some of the laxest gun laws (or is it the laxest gun laws?) in the developed world. And it is no coincidence that, due to those lax laws, we do have an offensive amount of gun violence, and a horrifying number of school shootings, workplace shootings, etc. Personally, I support gun control. I see no need for handguns or automatic weapons. Take the bloody assault rifles. We don't need them. We certain don't need semi-automatic handguns in the hands of our students, as some people have suggested. (I, and every teacher I know, have agreed that if our students were armed, we'd probably quit. It only takes one student angry about a grade...)
But.
I have to admit that I am kind of pissed off at that Italian newspaper. I am pissed off at The Guardian, who wrote an interesting and thoughtful article rebutting the recent attempts in the media to find in Cho's crappy writing a clear indicator of his intent. In that same column, The Guardian concluded that the only blame lay on the gun laws in the United States. I am sick and tired of listening to the international community point to the gun laws here as the sole reason behind this kind of violence.
There's a kernel of truth in their claims. There would be less gun violence in the US if guns were harder to come by. But you know what? It wouldn't cease altogether. There would still be school shootings. There would still be horrible accidents where a child gets ahold of a parent's gun. There would still be gang violence and home invasions...getting rid of the guns might help. But it won't stop it.
Look at Canada. Canada, I understand, has some fairly stiff gun laws. And yet, in Montreal alone, there have been four school shootings in the past twenty years. Leaving aside the horror of Ecole Polytechnique momentarily--let's call that an aberration--there are still people getting ahold of guns and killing/wounding dozens. Remember last September's attack at Dawson College?
Look at the UK. In 1996 in Dublane, Scotland, 16 children and a teacher were massacred by a gunman. It remains, in my mind, one of the most horrific school shootings ever. It's an anomaly in Britain, thank God, but still. There were fewer victims at Columbine.
In Tasmania, 35 people were killed by a gunman, also in 1996. Thirty-five victims? More than at VTech, which is the worst attack in United States history.
I could go on, but I don't really feel like it. My point here is that for all of our reputation, the United States is NOT alone in suffering gun violence. We certainly have more of it, but it seems to me that the truly nightmarish attacks, the things that we dread the most, are the ones that can't be prevented no matter how hard we try. Britain tightened its gun laws again after Dublane, but we'll never be able to completely stop things like this. So STOP BLAMING THE NATION FOR THE ACTIONS OF CRAZY PEOPLE.
I'm so sick of it. I just feel like...you know, it's like how much shame should we have? We fucked up Iraq, and, believe me, I'm sorry. I'm ashamed of the way my country has conducted itself in the past few years, and in the decades and centuries before that. We have done great things, but (like Voldemort?) we have also done terrible thing. It's really fashionable to hate America(ns) these days, and it's fashionable in some sectors to be ashamed as an American.
It's not easy, though. Especially if you love your country and want to be proud of it. If all you're faced with is a litany of your country's sins, it's hard to feel anything but constant shame, and where does that get us? Does it make us want to do better? Or does it encourage further defensiveness, further attempts to prove that we really are better than anyone?
There is a kernel of truth in that comment. The US does have some of the laxest gun laws (or is it the laxest gun laws?) in the developed world. And it is no coincidence that, due to those lax laws, we do have an offensive amount of gun violence, and a horrifying number of school shootings, workplace shootings, etc. Personally, I support gun control. I see no need for handguns or automatic weapons. Take the bloody assault rifles. We don't need them. We certain don't need semi-automatic handguns in the hands of our students, as some people have suggested. (I, and every teacher I know, have agreed that if our students were armed, we'd probably quit. It only takes one student angry about a grade...)
But.
I have to admit that I am kind of pissed off at that Italian newspaper. I am pissed off at The Guardian, who wrote an interesting and thoughtful article rebutting the recent attempts in the media to find in Cho's crappy writing a clear indicator of his intent. In that same column, The Guardian concluded that the only blame lay on the gun laws in the United States. I am sick and tired of listening to the international community point to the gun laws here as the sole reason behind this kind of violence.
There's a kernel of truth in their claims. There would be less gun violence in the US if guns were harder to come by. But you know what? It wouldn't cease altogether. There would still be school shootings. There would still be horrible accidents where a child gets ahold of a parent's gun. There would still be gang violence and home invasions...getting rid of the guns might help. But it won't stop it.
Look at Canada. Canada, I understand, has some fairly stiff gun laws. And yet, in Montreal alone, there have been four school shootings in the past twenty years. Leaving aside the horror of Ecole Polytechnique momentarily--let's call that an aberration--there are still people getting ahold of guns and killing/wounding dozens. Remember last September's attack at Dawson College?
Look at the UK. In 1996 in Dublane, Scotland, 16 children and a teacher were massacred by a gunman. It remains, in my mind, one of the most horrific school shootings ever. It's an anomaly in Britain, thank God, but still. There were fewer victims at Columbine.
In Tasmania, 35 people were killed by a gunman, also in 1996. Thirty-five victims? More than at VTech, which is the worst attack in United States history.
I could go on, but I don't really feel like it. My point here is that for all of our reputation, the United States is NOT alone in suffering gun violence. We certainly have more of it, but it seems to me that the truly nightmarish attacks, the things that we dread the most, are the ones that can't be prevented no matter how hard we try. Britain tightened its gun laws again after Dublane, but we'll never be able to completely stop things like this. So STOP BLAMING THE NATION FOR THE ACTIONS OF CRAZY PEOPLE.
I'm so sick of it. I just feel like...you know, it's like how much shame should we have? We fucked up Iraq, and, believe me, I'm sorry. I'm ashamed of the way my country has conducted itself in the past few years, and in the decades and centuries before that. We have done great things, but (like Voldemort?) we have also done terrible thing. It's really fashionable to hate America(ns) these days, and it's fashionable in some sectors to be ashamed as an American.
It's not easy, though. Especially if you love your country and want to be proud of it. If all you're faced with is a litany of your country's sins, it's hard to feel anything but constant shame, and where does that get us? Does it make us want to do better? Or does it encourage further defensiveness, further attempts to prove that we really are better than anyone?