Comments on: What must we do?

By: Jan

Jan — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 04:23:30 +0000

Yes, we are very much a country of “Judge Colt and his jury of six.” Recognizing that fact does not prevent me from asking, “How many people would Cho have killed had he walked in with a steak knife?” Asking simple questions and starting from a point without any assumptions can challenge those problems which seem impossible. We’ll hear talk from people who want more gun control and static from those who think media control is the answer. Ours in an era that lacks Big Ideas–the last was the neo-con dream of establishing democracy in the Middle East. But people need to ask the impossible questions in order to reach those Big Changes. How many kids must be born into asthma before we clean up our air? How high must our infant mortality rate rise (and it’s already at Third World rates) before we offer universal health care? How many citizens will we lock away before we realize drug treatment works better than incarceration? How many more kids will be shot to death before we join the rest of the industrialized world in it’s approach to gun control? Perhaps I am unfashionable, but I’d rather try to take down a malcontent in a fist fight than in a shoot-out.

By: Tina Riddell

Tina Riddell — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 19:29:57 +0000

Mark brings up an excellent point – “most other countries have strict gun control laws and their citizens rarely undertake these kind of rampage shootings”….I was just reading in “Freakonomics” last night that Switzerland provides all men over 18 guns during their military training which they are then able to keep…interestingly enough, their crime rate (related to guns) is almost non-existent.

By: chad

chad — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:23:41 +0000

At least there is an attempt at gun control. It could be worse, it is fairly difficult to get fully automatic weapons. It could be like a third world country where 8 year olds run around with ak47′s.

By: The Cheese Fry

The Cheese Fry — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:30:26 +0000

The esteemed law enforcement agent is, of course, correct. As much as this Democrat may hate to say it, gun control is just not a realistic solution. Not in America. You can’t unring that bell. This is a country uniquely obsessed with the firearm. This goes back, I think, to the Wild West where everyone carried a single-action 6-shooter and justice was swift and brutal – this country was essentially forged by the barrel of a gun and we love to mythologize and romanticize that fact. There’s also the whole Second Amendment thing as Chad points out – the right to bear arms was motivated by a fear of a military dictatorship in which the only people with guns would be the government. I just cannot see a time when handguns are outlawed. It’s too ingrained in our cultural DNA. That said, there’s really no other industrialized Western country with this kind of gun problem. Most other countries have strict gun control laws and their citizens rarely undertake these kind of rampage shootings that lay waste to so many lives. It’s an American thing. Would it be a better, safer country if people could only own rifles and shotguns and not multi-round handguns? Absolutely. Is that going to happen? Probably not.

By: chad

chad — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:24:05 +0000

I’m just worried that if you start messing with the constitution that it will have a greater harm. Individuals would then add or subtract what they thought is needed or not needed. You would then need to be 100 percent positive of who you are voting for for that to work. I fear that we would then live in a society that we see in movies and think would never happen. You know what i mean. Black skies, dirty streets, posters of dictators on the grimey walls. Children running around with dirty faces, mutants with 6 arms, ok that’s a stretch but i hope you get my point. You can’t give people in today’s society to much power i.e. change the constitution. It could get alot scarier when you look out your window and see troops with laser cannons patroling your suburb.

By: chad

chad — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:08:43 +0000

Trust me, i wish every gun out there could be collected, melted, and then turned into a monument for all those that have been killed by them. However, that cannot be done. How would guns be retrieved? The police or military would have to come into homes and rip them from people’s hands. I don’t think it’s so much that the constitution gives people the right to bear arms, i think it’s more important that it keeps the govenment out of your house. It’s a problem that has no easy solution. Catch 22 may be a proper phrase. Regardless, until guns are taken out of the hands of bad guys first, you must keep them in the hands of the good guys. And i’m not talking about the police or military. I’m really not a gun nut. I just think that it’s more of a social problem than a gun problem. People will find an outlet for violence. Whether it be a gun, baseball bat, or anthrax. People will murder other people. We need to change why people murder and not what they murder them with.

By: Tina Riddell

Tina Riddell — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:04:12 +0000

Having lived in this country since only 1998, I have come to respect and appreciate the United States for (most of) its values and way of life. I do believe, though, that as a country, it’s time to look at the present dangers we face, the cultural changes affecting people’s lives on a daily basis, and the “rules” we still live by. Keeping an amendment (the right to bear arms) in tact like it was during a time when this country was fighting for independence with muzzle-loaded muskets, seems ill-fit for today’s world. What will it take to convince the masses that while law enforcement officers should very much have the means to protect themselves and us with fire arms, regular citizens should not be provided that same option?

By: Brad Riddell

Brad Riddell — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:52:40 +0000

BTW, that was a well-written and well-argued point, Chad. I still don’t see why the average person needs a semi-auto handgun with a 19 round clip. Rifles and shotguns I can understand. Plus, most of the time they are easy to spot ahead of time, and not so easy to fire rapidly. You can’t hunt with pistols. You kill people with pistols. So why should everyone be able to own one? You can’t buy anthrax on the open market. What’s the difference?

By: Brad Riddell

Brad Riddell — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:11:14 +0000

I still believe there are more good people than bad, too. But I hear and read about people getting shot everyday. A guy I know’s best friend was killed with a shotgun in a 7/11 right in front of his family for no good reason. It doesn’t take 33 deaths to make a tragedy.

By: chad

chad — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 08:35:31 +0000

The sad fact of the matter is that if someone else were carrying a gun it could have prevented a lot of deaths. Even if this kid didn\’t have a 9mm and a .22, somebody was gonna die at his hand. There are a lot more good people in the world than bad, i\’ve learned that. I\’m not trying to sound like a extreme right advocate of weapons, but, give the good guys guns and they will take care of the bad guys. Sounds cheesy but i believe it. Some people are crazy, most are not. I believe that our moral sensibilities would prevent someone who gets into an argument from pulling their gun and shooting the other guy. Will happen eventually, but so will some nut with two pistols walking around another campus shooting people. A gun in the right hands could have done a lot today. Maybe only one or two families greiving instead of 33. Regardless, bad guys will get guns, that\’s why the good guys should have them too. Guns are not evil, people are evil. It\’s the tool of choice for cowards who get mad at their girlfriends. If my gun is sitting in the drawer, it\’s not gonna hurt anybody. It\’s when it\’s picked up that problems arise. Even if guns didn\’t exist, hate and violence still would. I don\’t have the answers, but if someone starts shooting when i\’m around, i will, too.