I have a feeling that the tragedy that occurred today at VA Tech is going to lead to a reopening of the gun control debate in the United States.
Gun control isn’t a debate in my mind — it’s a no-brainer: guns should not be widely accessible. Period. Then again, I’m not American.
After laying out both sides of the debate by quoting various political figures, he went on to say:
The person who carried out this attack could have just as easily used a bomb as a gun. Because of the lack of campus security, this was a unique incident that should not be lumped in as part of the gun debate. I have always thought that if someone is intent on killing they will find a way. Removing all guns isn’t the answer, but I do think that we need to ask ourselves why does the U.S. have so many more violent incidents like this compared to the rest of the industrialized world. It isn’t an easy question to answer, and I don’t think the solution is as simple as taking away all the guns. I am far from what would be considered a “gun nut,” but to me it is clear banning guns, except assault weapons, isn’t the answer. I think our societal problem rests more in the hearts of the individuals that carry out such actions than in the instruments that they use to kill others.
Sounds like a vicious cycle to me.
1. Gun advocates defend their right to own guns in the name of self-defense. 1
2. But easy accessibility to guns leads to violent crimes. 2
3. Violent crimes makes people insecure, though insecurity is force-fed to the consumers in this fear-driven society.
The cycle continues…
This reminds me of a clip in Bowling for Columbine:
1 I find it hard to believe that anyone would walk out of the gun shop thinking “if someone breaks into my house, I’ll scare him away with my gun.” It’s more like “I’ll kill the bastard!”
2 One might argue that guns could not be linked to shootings. I think that’s objective BS that won’t hold up against the conscience.