The difference is painfully clear: here in freedom-loving America, a man took a gun and killed 20 children and six adults, while in communist China, a man who was apparently every bit as deranged as his comrade-in-madness in Connecticut was not able to get a gun, and so used a knife; and no one died. His actions are still shocking and inexcusable, but 22 children there are still alive today, whereas 20 children here in America are dead. The only difference of note was that one man had easy access to firearms, and the other did not.
Anyone who supports getting rid of all guns is living in a fantasy land; gun-totin' Pandora is out of her box and she's never getting back in. But we can try to minimize the violence and mitigate the damage done by those who seem to hold guns to be some sort of holy religious icon. All firearms must be registered, all owners must be licensed, and all owners must be responsible for what happens with their firearms. All of these already apply to vehicle ownership anyway, but we can safely assume that nothing's going to happen; the gun lobby in Washington is still too powerful, too strong. And so we will learn nothing as a nation, and more innocent people will die.
It's as if Thomas Jefferson's quote is incomplete and needs to be rewritten: "The tree of Second Amendment liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants and innocent children," for if tragedies such as those that happened today cannot serve as object lessons that easy access to firearms is nothing more than a recipe for horror and grave injustice, then what indeed is the meaning of the blood shed by those 20 innocent children in that elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - troll
...your source tells of a recent school knife attack in China (a trending phenomenon) in which eight were killed somewhat undermining your argument
2 - Dung Honter
As a comparison, 350-400 people in the US drown in bathtubs every year, many of them small children. That's much more of a child killer than school shootings. What is giving up baths for showers if it means the life of a child? Let's ban bathtubs and mandate shower only with no drain stop.
In fact, if we gave away all freedoms to the government they could make us much safer, government mandated healthy food, eliminating tubs, pools, even restricting beach access, outlawing or taxing into oblivion cigarettes, alcohol, and weed, the list goes on forever.
But I don't need to tell you that, you're a liberal, you already plan to dictate everyone's lives by your arbitrary values. Who cares if we can all live to be 100 as good government worker bees if we have no freedoms, no joys, no choice?
3 - Dung Honter
What's up with the site anyways. I have to go anonymous proxy and not use my normal handle or my comment gets blocked 'because of who we believe you are', that's when it even works at all. Is this something everyone experiences lately or have I been singled out. (wouldn't be the first time my IP was blacklisted)
4 - troll
Doug - looks to me like the site is under a pretty intense spam attack and somebody destabilized the platform while fighting it
5 - troll
oddly I'm having no trouble posting comments using 'troll' while others complain of having to use proxies
6 - Clavos
Troll's right insofar as we have had serious instability problems with the site for several days now. I'm told that the tech gurus are feverishly working on it and expect to have it resolved soon.
7 - Glenn Contrarian
troll -
your source tells of a recent school knife attack in China (a trending phenomenon) in which eight were killed somewhat undermining your argument
And how many more could that knife-wielder have killed if he'd had guns? And in the attacks at Columbine, Aurora, Arizona, and Newtown, could the attackers have killed so many if they hadn't had guns?
No, troll, you didn't disprove my argument at all.
8 - Glenn Contrarian
Doug -
In fact, if we gave away all freedoms to the government they could make us much safer, government mandated healthy food, eliminating tubs, pools, even restricting beach access, outlawing or taxing into oblivion cigarettes, alcohol, and weed, the list goes on forever.
Well, fine, then let's get rid of seat belts and airbags, and bike helmets and vaccines, too!
Doug, it makes zero sense to ignore one needless source of danger just because there are other sources of danger. All you're doing is building a strawman.
9 - Cindy
I think if you want to stop people shooting each other, probably better get started replicating something other than a society that produces pathology in people.
(Not that I think that's gonna happen any time soon. I'll wager on human extinction, first.)
10 - Cindy
I had to use my VPN to be able to post.
11 - troll
No, troll, you didn't disprove my argument at all.
...didn't say I had or that I was even trying to - only pointed out some conflicting evidence...if you think gun control is the answer knock yourself out
but perhaps you will acknowledge that intent could have some impact on the number of deaths in any attack in addition to the availability of various kinds of weapons indicating that the problem is complex
I'd like to understand more about how we're producing that intension
and remember: clubs don't kill people - people kill people
12 - Igor
About guns: here's what the constitution says in it's famous second amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It seems clear that the founders wanted a militia that could be quickly assembled to fight off an indian attack or a marauding grizzly bear, or a bunch of British Loyalists, NOT that each citizen be sufficiently armed to settle personal problems with weapons. After all, the USA was a creature of The Enlightenment, where people were to settle arguments with Courts and Judges, not duels.
Most of us know what a militia is, a sort of National Guard unit for local use. Just as the NG is often called out to help stack sandbags in case of flood, and direct traffic, etc.
These days we seldom have indian attacks (not as many as we deserve, I daresay) and grizzlies have almost disappeared. Sometimes we have an occasional cougar that wanders into the suburbs, usually a starving under-weight male chased from the tribe as a population control measure, but then a Specialist is called in with a dart gun.
It's hard to see the place of an armed militia in modern society.
13 - troll
(Glenn - if I look for something to propose for debate here it'd be that your argument from numbers is offensive...what of us anti-aggregationists who live in a world where the notion that 'to kill one is to destroy the universe entire' is paradigmatic?)
14 - Baronius
I just want to mourn today. I want to crawl under the covers and weep. I hate that I have to write something pro-gun on a day like this.
Then I think: this is the price of democracy, having to defend your beliefs every day. Glenn's right to make his argument. It'd be unfair to ask him not to, because he truly believes that this is the best time to take steps to avert another tragedy.
Then I catch myself. If I thought that gun laws would prevent a tragedy like this, I'd be out marching side-by-side with Glenn. I don't. I don't believe they will. Does Glenn think I wouldn't want to protect the children? That I'm holding to a position just because of politics, a position that I know to be wrong? I'm back to being disgusted.
The best I can come up with today is the belief that the people on both sides of this issue have good intentions.
15 - Dan(Miller)
Glen,
I have seen many demands for more gun control laws, but I have seen no specific proposals that might have prevented the current tragedy or others like it. I have also heard that Connecticut has very strict gun control laws.
How, specifically, would you structure new gun control laws for Connecticut?
16 - Cindy
There once was a man with no legs, he wanted to go out and buy a gun to kill some people. But he couldn't walk. So, the people lived. Thus, guns don't kill people, legs kill people.
17 - Clavos
Well, fine, then let's get rid of seat belts and airbags, and bike helmets and vaccines, too!
No need to get rid of 'em, just make 'em optional; them that wants, gets, them that don't...
18 - panda
These mass shootings are a recent phenomenon; the fact is that guns have been around since the founding of our nation. The root cause of all of these current incidents is social conditioning. If you are looking for something to place blame on, you can blame our current culture of violence. Children are introduced to killing and death at a very young age from TV shows, movies, and video games. They see violence everywhere and become desensitized to it.
19 - Glenn Contrarian
It would be REALLY nice if technorati would stop blocking me so I can use something other than this iPhone....
20 - Christopher Rose
Glenn, try deleting your Blogcritics cookies and emptying your browser cache.
If that doesn't work, please email me including the article url, the rejection message, the date and time and your computer's IP address and I will take it up with the tech team tomorrow.
As to the topic of this post, there is a clear distinction between pistols and the kind of assault weapon used in this latest atrocity.
I wouldn't support a blanket ban on all guns, which would be absurd, but it is hard to imagine why people need to own assault rifles.
The other measure which could be introduced is to keep forensic records of all weapons in the USA and making their registered owners responsible for their safety and use.
21 - Baronius
Panda has a point. I remember when violent video games started, they were a novelty. They were popular for the shock value. You had an Atari-type pixel guy who ran around shooting yellow dots at badly-animated heads, and there'd be a spray of red dots if you hit'em. We've arrived at the point where people spend hours sitting in front of a screen pulling a trigger over and over again, watching some very realistic dehumanizing images. They're basically spree-killer simulations.
Now, it's true, boys will be boys. We'll point crayons at each other and make shooting sounds. "Pchoo! Pchoo!" But even then we'll set up some moral context with good guys and bad guys. Video game violence is all about killing as many people as quickly as possible.
22 - Cindy
Now, it's true, boys will be boys. We'll point crayons at each other and make shooting sounds. "Pchoo! Pchoo!" But even then we'll set up some moral context with good guys and bad guys. Video game violence is all about killing as many people as quickly as possible.
Why is it true that "boys will be boys"? Have you considered that? Are boys inherently born to act that way?
What if the video violence you are seeing now is merely the outcome of what the Capitalistic market does with an already learned gender expression.
Are there cultures where boys might express their boyness differently? Alternately, are there any boys that could still be boys and express a pacifistic nature?
23 - Dave Nalle
Truly nutty, Glenn. The fact that the shooter displayed all the characteristics of the kind of adjustment disorder which is typical in these shootings makes it very clear that mental illness was the problem, not guns.
Dave
24 - Dr. Joseph S. Maresca
We need more rigorous registration requirements for guns-particularly those sold across interstate lines.
In addition, registrants should undergo background checks, as well as basic licensing exams just like we
have with automobiles. I think that Washington, as well as big city mayors have issues with the loose
or non-existent registration requirements in some jurisdictions. Perhaps, a national registration law
is required so that the process can be simplified and standardized.
There are disparate constituencies of users involved. Some holders need guns for their jobs. i.e. police
Others require a gun because they live in a jurisdiction where police are miles away. i.e. upstate
counties of New York People who live far from police protection have a right to demand guns
to protect against roaming wild animals, as well as criminals during robbery attempts and major assaults.
25 - Baronius
Cindy, no economic system has yet proven to change human nature. The whole idea that an economic system would provide salvation, fill that hole in the human heart, has always struck me as ludicrous. I'm a big fan of capitalism - nothing's proven better to provide physical sustenance for billions - but for spiritual problems you should seek spiritual solutions. And I wonder what economic system you think either has or would change the perennial patterns of human weakness. If communism or mercantilism or something had ever cured us of our violence, I think you'd have mentioned it. The biggest contribution the anarcho-occupy guys have given to the culture is the coining of the term "rape tent". Until your critique of capitalism gets fleshed out with some real-world counterexamples, I'm going to remain unpersuaded.