More thoughts on V-Tech...
"The only person who is responsible to defend you is you. The police are incapable of defending each and every one of us all the time. Citizens have an inherent right to be able to defend themselves. You can't always have a policeman on every street corner to take care of you. Whenever you have a bunch of gun-control laws that prohibit people from carrying, the ones with the guns are the criminals "
- Mike Stollenwerk, 44, co-founder of OpenCarry.org, a Virginia-based gun-rights networking group.
"This is a huge nail in the coffin of gun control. They had gun control on campus and it got all those people killed, because nobody could defend themselves."
- Philip Van Cleave, president of the gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League.
Both Quotes from:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070423/ts_afp/uscrimeshootingguns_070423051327
First off, my name is Evan Sanchez. I attend the University of Idaho and we had a student who was murdered in my apartment complex a couple of weeks ago (less than a minute walk from my front door). I also have friends up in Seattle, including some people I know @ UW that had a school shooting on campus within the last few weeks (a professor was killed). I grew up in the post-Columbine world of looking for exits or gunmen whenever some stupid meathead popped a balloon in an assembly.
Wth all of that said, I completely respect the right to keep and bear arms. I'm honestly not a gun control fan. However, I really don't understand the pro-gun lobby coming out in force and suggesting that the solution is to arm everyone or make it A-ok to carry firearms on campus.
I keep seeing these messages from the Pro-Gun lobby insisting we need guns to protect ourselves as if school shootings are just a reality we should be accustomed to and as such, we should live in a climate of militant paranoia by making it A-ok to pack heat on campuses.
I think these messages obscure several important facts. Most of this recent push centers on the fact that had *one* other person had a gun, they *might* have stopped the Virginia Tech shooter and that Virginia Tech didn't permit firearms on their campus. The argument is that when you ban guns from campus, the only people that are carrying guns are the criminals (no really?)
I think these messages obscure two important facts.
1) School shootings don't really happen all that often.
The media would have you believe otherwise, but think about how many hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of students that NEVER have to deal with an incidence of gun violence or a gun massacre on campus. Stretch out in your social networks. I bet you would come closer to knowing a friend who is connected to a celebrity than a friend that knows a victim of school based gun violence.
I think this is important because the gun lobby peddles this fear that isn't really based in reality. They also seem to be saying, "We live in a modern world and in a modern world, you have to take things in your own hands and the only way to do that is to live like you are living in Beirut." I really dislike the message that to be "realistic" to today's threats requires accepting school violence as a day to day "reality" when it just isn't the case. Does it happen? Yes. Hiding your head in the sand and pretending it doesn't or can't is silly. However, acting like it is Armageddon and that this is such an epidemic that we need guns in the hands of every man, woman, and child seems to be a bit much.
2) There are BETTER ways to disarm a psychopath without resorting to tons o' guns.
First, 18,000 warning signs are almost ALWAYS ignored by people. Instead of arming an entire campus or sending the social message that the only way you can feel safe on campus is to take things into your own hands (by having weapons readily available) why don't we focus on the EXTREME EXTREME minority of kids that need help and how to recognize them and get them that help?
I understand that this doesn't have to be an "either/or" situation. This question isn't framed in terms of "help spot perpetrators" OR "have tons of guns in schools." You CAN have both. However, I think that the presence of guns on campus has way more net harms than benefits and I think it is pretty unnecessary considering how few school shooting there are combined with the fact that I think in most cases the school has already failed the students on campus if a gun is pulled (and I think the gun lobby fails to really acknowledge that).
With those two main things considered, it is really hard for me to NOT see this as a cheap attempt at capitalizing on a tragedy to make some money based on paranoia. The sad thing is, I know that *some* people reading this have an instant gut reaction (most likely) to tell me how bad the world we live in is and that I'm naive and not just up on the realities of living life as a 21st century American. I think that is really too bad because I think the media does such a terrible job of promoting a balanced perspective on life. The way we are raised to think, we constantly face terrorism, murder, robbery, serial killers, school shooters, etc when really these deaths are numerically *miniscule* when compared to the overall picture of how people die in America (heart disease, stroke, cancer, drunk driving). Look at the statistics, America...they aren't what you think they are...certainly not enough to justify this paranoid, depressed, accepting mindset that acquiesces to the "inevitability" of mass murders.
I think it is outrageous that politicians (whose pockets are lined bycorporate interest - either pro OR anti-gun) are either exploiting this situation to sell rifles, ammunition, and gun licenses by peddling fear to everyone or exploiting the situation to try to get guns taken away completely. I think it is disgusting that both sides are vying for power on this one.
Some closing thoughts:
How about those gun free campus? Are they really so bad? I see tons of other campuses doing just fine without everyone walking around like 50 Cent. Are guns really the answer here or the solution? I think not. Also, can the left chill out a bit and not try to be fascist for once on this issue? It isn't surprising to see the gun lobby try to preemptively strike when the left has a pretty big history of pushing for gun bans or pretty heavy gun-control after tragedy. Does the left really need to try and take everyone's guns away whenever these things happen? Every time things like V-Tech or Columbine happen, everyone's pet causes come rushing out. When these causes come out into the public sphere, the Conservatives (and asshole democrats like Joe Lieberman, Tipper Gore, etc) try to blame and ban certain forms of entertainment. You then see the left try to blame guns. Are either of these intelligble reactions? I think not.
Let's face it, the amount of crimes committed by gun owners is really small compared to the overall number of gun owners (much in the same way that the ratio of people who enjoy violent media and commit violence is really really small). This tragedy is not an excuse to try to take a fundamental American right that has very real reasons for existing (hunting, political violence in case the government becomes tyrannical, defense from foreign invasion, or personal home defense if people decide upon that). It is also worth noting that there are nations with harsh gun control with less gun related violence (England, Japan, etc) and there are countries that have harsh gun control and havepretty bad gun violence (Brazil, Russia). Look at how much Canada and France love their guns and how little gun crime they have. I personally don't think the key variables in play are just what laws are on the books (or not), though I certainly think that given our unique cultural situation here, there are certainly things that could worsen the situation (like guns on campus for example). I think the right should also not exploit tragedy to try to sell shit to people and ignore the real underlying problems that make people reach for guns in the first place.
I guess I see both sides acting in less than admirable ways on this one.
My 2 cents.
-Evan H. Sanchez
- Mike Stollenwerk, 44, co-founder of OpenCarry.org, a Virginia-based gun-rights networking group.
"This is a huge nail in the coffin of gun control. They had gun control on campus and it got all those people killed, because nobody could defend themselves."
- Philip Van Cleave, president of the gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League.
Both Quotes from:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070423/ts_afp/uscrimeshootingguns_070423051327
First off, my name is Evan Sanchez. I attend the University of Idaho and we had a student who was murdered in my apartment complex a couple of weeks ago (less than a minute walk from my front door). I also have friends up in Seattle, including some people I know @ UW that had a school shooting on campus within the last few weeks (a professor was killed). I grew up in the post-Columbine world of looking for exits or gunmen whenever some stupid meathead popped a balloon in an assembly.
Wth all of that said, I completely respect the right to keep and bear arms. I'm honestly not a gun control fan. However, I really don't understand the pro-gun lobby coming out in force and suggesting that the solution is to arm everyone or make it A-ok to carry firearms on campus.
I keep seeing these messages from the Pro-Gun lobby insisting we need guns to protect ourselves as if school shootings are just a reality we should be accustomed to and as such, we should live in a climate of militant paranoia by making it A-ok to pack heat on campuses.
I think these messages obscure several important facts. Most of this recent push centers on the fact that had *one* other person had a gun, they *might* have stopped the Virginia Tech shooter and that Virginia Tech didn't permit firearms on their campus. The argument is that when you ban guns from campus, the only people that are carrying guns are the criminals (no really?)
I think these messages obscure two important facts.
1) School shootings don't really happen all that often.
The media would have you believe otherwise, but think about how many hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of students that NEVER have to deal with an incidence of gun violence or a gun massacre on campus. Stretch out in your social networks. I bet you would come closer to knowing a friend who is connected to a celebrity than a friend that knows a victim of school based gun violence.
I think this is important because the gun lobby peddles this fear that isn't really based in reality. They also seem to be saying, "We live in a modern world and in a modern world, you have to take things in your own hands and the only way to do that is to live like you are living in Beirut." I really dislike the message that to be "realistic" to today's threats requires accepting school violence as a day to day "reality" when it just isn't the case. Does it happen? Yes. Hiding your head in the sand and pretending it doesn't or can't is silly. However, acting like it is Armageddon and that this is such an epidemic that we need guns in the hands of every man, woman, and child seems to be a bit much.
2) There are BETTER ways to disarm a psychopath without resorting to tons o' guns.
First, 18,000 warning signs are almost ALWAYS ignored by people. Instead of arming an entire campus or sending the social message that the only way you can feel safe on campus is to take things into your own hands (by having weapons readily available) why don't we focus on the EXTREME EXTREME minority of kids that need help and how to recognize them and get them that help?
I understand that this doesn't have to be an "either/or" situation. This question isn't framed in terms of "help spot perpetrators" OR "have tons of guns in schools." You CAN have both. However, I think that the presence of guns on campus has way more net harms than benefits and I think it is pretty unnecessary considering how few school shooting there are combined with the fact that I think in most cases the school has already failed the students on campus if a gun is pulled (and I think the gun lobby fails to really acknowledge that).
With those two main things considered, it is really hard for me to NOT see this as a cheap attempt at capitalizing on a tragedy to make some money based on paranoia. The sad thing is, I know that *some* people reading this have an instant gut reaction (most likely) to tell me how bad the world we live in is and that I'm naive and not just up on the realities of living life as a 21st century American. I think that is really too bad because I think the media does such a terrible job of promoting a balanced perspective on life. The way we are raised to think, we constantly face terrorism, murder, robbery, serial killers, school shooters, etc when really these deaths are numerically *miniscule* when compared to the overall picture of how people die in America (heart disease, stroke, cancer, drunk driving). Look at the statistics, America...they aren't what you think they are...certainly not enough to justify this paranoid, depressed, accepting mindset that acquiesces to the "inevitability" of mass murders.
I think it is outrageous that politicians (whose pockets are lined bycorporate interest - either pro OR anti-gun) are either exploiting this situation to sell rifles, ammunition, and gun licenses by peddling fear to everyone or exploiting the situation to try to get guns taken away completely. I think it is disgusting that both sides are vying for power on this one.
Some closing thoughts:
How about those gun free campus? Are they really so bad? I see tons of other campuses doing just fine without everyone walking around like 50 Cent. Are guns really the answer here or the solution? I think not. Also, can the left chill out a bit and not try to be fascist for once on this issue? It isn't surprising to see the gun lobby try to preemptively strike when the left has a pretty big history of pushing for gun bans or pretty heavy gun-control after tragedy. Does the left really need to try and take everyone's guns away whenever these things happen? Every time things like V-Tech or Columbine happen, everyone's pet causes come rushing out. When these causes come out into the public sphere, the Conservatives (and asshole democrats like Joe Lieberman, Tipper Gore, etc) try to blame and ban certain forms of entertainment. You then see the left try to blame guns. Are either of these intelligble reactions? I think not.
Let's face it, the amount of crimes committed by gun owners is really small compared to the overall number of gun owners (much in the same way that the ratio of people who enjoy violent media and commit violence is really really small). This tragedy is not an excuse to try to take a fundamental American right that has very real reasons for existing (hunting, political violence in case the government becomes tyrannical, defense from foreign invasion, or personal home defense if people decide upon that). It is also worth noting that there are nations with harsh gun control with less gun related violence (England, Japan, etc) and there are countries that have harsh gun control and havepretty bad gun violence (Brazil, Russia). Look at how much Canada and France love their guns and how little gun crime they have. I personally don't think the key variables in play are just what laws are on the books (or not), though I certainly think that given our unique cultural situation here, there are certainly things that could worsen the situation (like guns on campus for example). I think the right should also not exploit tragedy to try to sell shit to people and ignore the real underlying problems that make people reach for guns in the first place.
I guess I see both sides acting in less than admirable ways on this one.
My 2 cents.
-Evan H. Sanchez