Desicritics Comments on The Virginia Tech Massacre

Comment by jaq

Sun, 20 May 2007 20:17:51 EDT

The shooter at Virginia Tech used guns that were bought completely legally. He WAS one of you "reponsible citizens."

Comment by The Shiva

Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:03:44 EDT

@ Phillip: Thanks for your comments. I completely agree its not just about banning fire-arms, but is in fact about the sale of fire-arms to responsible citizens. Where does the responsibility end for the companies that sell these guns? Or if its society's problem, then why aren't there more stringent laws in place, verification of the applicant's mental health, and not just the five day wait period to pass a background check. The reason I feel that noone cares and there is this lack of empathy is because this isnt the first time something like this has happened. I dont think the constitution is up for debate, its the implementation that should.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:47:15 EDT

The main problem was indeed in this guy's head. By the way, I came across a link at Digg that demonstrated what I wrote about in my last comment: An Armed Citizen With A Permit Stopped The Last VA College Shooting Rampage. Of course, reasonable people can disagree about the interpretation of events, but I find the comments on that Digg page interesting. If you want a look into the mindset of Americans who don't want restrictions on carrying weapons, there's a decent cross-section.

Comment by Bakhtiar Ali

Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:12:41 EDT

The basic problem I feel with the guy responsible for shooting was that he was not able to cope up with the peer pressure which very high in the American society. No doubt that open availability of guns was used very well in this case, but the main problem was in the guy's head.

Comment by Phillip Winn

Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:23:29 EDT

It's important to note that the NRA doesn't depend on the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment for their case. I'm not a member, so I miss out on a lot of these emails and publications, but my understanding is that they distribute frequent lists of stories gathered from around the country in which legal use of firearms *prevents* tragedies like this one. In fact, I can guarantee you that their spin on this will be that VT *banned* guns a few years ago, and if they had not done so, 33 people would not be dead. The killer would have been incapacitated or killed quickly, stopping the death toll before it got so high. They'll be able to point to multiple examples of other similar situations, too. Situations that started as school shooting that could have taken out dozens or hundreds of students, but where disaster was averted by legal gun-carrying citizenry, most likely NRA members. I can predict this because I've seen it happen before. Most importantly, I'm not sure they're wrong. We get worked up about children accidentally killed by guns in the home, and we should. We don't seem to get as worked up about children drowning in pools, though that happens far, far, far more often than the first. Why does the one grab headlines while the other doesn't? Obviously a massive tragedy like this is upsetting, and will rule headlines for days. Stories in which disasters are averted by the proper use of guns aren't upsetting, so they slip beneath the radar, and most of us don't even think about them. Whether the math works out or not, I don't know. It is enough for me to realize that this is not a one-sided argument. This is not a bunch of old white men sitting around trying to figure out how to make money by appealing to archaic documents while laughing at death and destruction. These are people who -- rightly or wrongly -- truly believe that their cause is just and true, and that tragedies like this Virginia Tech shooting simply wouldn't happen if people were allowed to carry firearms.

Comment by M (Tread Softly Upon)

Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:03:35 EDT

My thoughts exactly. Am linking this to my blog.