I was flipping through blogs as part of my usual routine, when I saw a post on Techvixen that stirred something within me. Anger was the emotion.
She was describing of a recent massacre in Binghampton where 13 people died at the hands of a single gunman, before he killed himself. More than 98 shots were fired from a Beretta and a .45.
My initial reaction was outrage. Why must this happen? When are people going to get the message? This is not an isolated. There was Columbine, which inspired the documentary "Bowling for Columbine" directed by Micheal Moore. There was the all-too-recent Virginia Tech shooting. And now this.
In my opinion, the problem is the availability of guns and legalization of the sales of firearms. The widespread availability of guns has driven crime through the roof, so much so that guns are needed for the protection of the people. Guns protecting from guns. Its pathetic and sick, not unlike countries hoarding nuclear weapons(another issue that pisses me off-Why North Korea? Why?).
I mean the gunman killed 14 including himself. And was capable of so much more. 98 shots were fired (more than three times the full magazine of a m16 issued by the SAF), most hitting targets, with one victim shot about 11 times. Imagine he had the presence of mind to fire 1 round per victim. Furthermore, unused magazine clips were found, dropped in the process of reloading. THERE WAS FREAKING UNUSED AMMO??!!
Gadget Vixen kinda disagrees with me. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and her view is worth a look over. Take a look at our interesting discussion in the comments of a topic that has been a hot political topic in the US for years.
12 Comments on "Guns - Most Dangerous Gadgets of all. American Civic Association Shooting"
So what do you think? Should guns be banned? Are humans the real reason why these crimes happen and not the guns themselves? Feel free to join in the discussion.
Manufacturer Recalls Hollow Point Bullets That Fail To Explode Inside Targets
05/04/2009 at 11:49 am Permalink
06/04/2009 at 7:43 am Permalink
Hmm, not sure if I agree there. Those who want to seriously hurt you have the means of getting a gun. If guns are made illegal in the U.S., this takes away a method of defense from people who are actually law abiding citizens and would NOT get a gun illegally. Guns are so ingrained in American culture that outlawing them will not suddenly get criminals with guns to throw their weapons away - they’ll just be able to shoot more people, who are now even more defenseless.
Besides, there are plenty of stories popping up in the news about people defending themselves with guns and saving their lives.
06/04/2009 at 2:31 pm Permalink
Nope, banning guns will not solve the problem. Not in the short term. Neither is treating a cancer. Banning guns will present huge problems in terms of crime: Criminals still possessing weapons and law abiding citizens not. Yet, the situation is never so simple. What is to stop a law abiding citizen to suddenly undergo depression and firing at people? Banning guns wont stop the problem, but at least it is the first step in limiting the gun-related problems. Criminals get arrested, firearms will be seized; slowly, eventually, the problem will start to diminish. That is much better than letting the guns be available to any tom dick or harry, law abiding or not.
There are other means of self-protection. Other means that could also not mean endangering your or your aggressor’s lives. Not quite as compelling or as persuasive as a gun, no doubt, bt the alternatives are available. In my opinion, weapons are exclusively meant for the enforcement agencies like the police and military to do what they are supposed to do: protect us.
07/04/2009 at 7:35 am Permalink
I have to admit I don’t quite understand the comparison to cancer. If we were able to just ‘ban’ aka cure cancer all of a sudden it really would solve the problem of people dying from it, wouldn’t it?
I guess we just think differently about it. The way I think of it is if I am under attack by an aggressor then I don’t really care about endangering his/her life. I want to save my own. I’m not the one who attacked them.
We’ve heard plenty of stories about police misusing their powers, including tasering children and innocent people. Where do we draw the line?
07/04/2009 at 2:34 pm Permalink
sorry, I should explain the cancer metaphor a little more. Most cancer patient undergoing treatment normally get worse before they get better. Alot worse in fact. That was what i meant in the scenario if guns were banned.
As for endangering lives, it goes both ways. Ive been in the military before, and ive heard stories of soldiers injured or even killed because of stray bullets or mishandling of firearms. And we are talking about soldiers whom are trained i the use of firearms. What more when dealing with untrained civilians? Are we capable of handling such a big responsibility of holding a firearm? The answer for most civilians is no.
As for police misusing their powers, im sure that is far more unlikely and far less dangerous than if a certain person suddenly starts firing at people. Look at the Virginia Tech case for example. Or even the case that you have brought up. These were done by civilians, not the police. Furthermore, most police are psychologically checked and held accountable for every firearm they own.
08/04/2009 at 4:52 am Permalink
Ah, thanks for explaining the bit about cancer!
The thing is that those who want to use firearms to kill people will get them. There have been many cases where people did, indeed, use the firearms to protect themselves. Had these law-abiding citizens not been in possession of a firearm they could be dead right now. Either way people die.
How do we know that people suddenly going crazy and going on shooting sprees is more common than a corrupted police officer? Is it really more likely that a person will suddenly grab a gun and start shooting his family?
08/04/2009 at 11:11 am Permalink
Well, if anyone do go on a killing spree, it will be all over the news, corrupted or not. So, when was the last time a police officer went on a killing spree, as opposed to a civilian? Hardly, if any. One reason is because the police are never assigned more ammo than they are needed, whereas civilians are able to hoard weapons and ammunition at will.
As you said, either way, people die. Yet, would you rather have deaths and go closer to a solution in terms of limiting firearms, or deaths without any step closer to a solution. How much can u educate people and train civilians in the use of guns? I agree many lives were saved from the usage of guns, but it is because of this availability of firearms which is why they need firearms to protect themselves. It is a vicious circle, and it need to stop somewhere, even if it means costing lives.
It is precisely this availability of guns which is why steps have to be taken in confiscating them. Lets pretend you are a psycho (lol), and you grab the nearest weapon you can find to kill someone. I doubt that a crazy person will search for a firearm when there is, say, a kitchen knife available (people under psychosis have a limited ability to plan ahead). Obviously, a kitchen will kill far less people as compared to the gun.
08/04/2009 at 9:32 pm Permalink
You bring up a very good point and I have to say that I don’t have a valid argument against it! I can’t say I’m totally swayed on the subject of whether guns should be legal or not, but I’m definitely going to be doing a lotmore thinking about it.
09/04/2009 at 2:44 am Permalink
It is just that I kinda feel quite strongly about the subject. Thinking deeper into an issue will be the first step to solve our world’s problems, as opposed to policies for the sake of policies or plain inaction.
Would you mind if I publish our conversation on my blog? Ive been interested in the relation of crime and guns for quite some time and had wanted to blog about it.
09/04/2009 at 5:32 am Permalink
I don’t mind if you publish it at all