source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/18/wcampus1718.xml
Most worrying paragraph: "Millions of Americans will accept his implication that the killings happened not because guns were too freely available but because they were not available enough."
So let me get this right...a large proportion of Americans think the answer to Virginia Tech would have been to ensure that all 25,000 students were armed? That way the disaster wouldn't have happened because someone would have killed Sho before he mowed everyone down?
ok, I have 10 points I must make before my head explodes.
1) Given that Sho had mental illness, would it not be logical that out of 25,000 students (or indeed any sample pool of 25,000 humans) a small number would have a similar or potentially similar disposition towards random or illogical acts of extreme violence, and as such, killings could occur more regularly if all 25,000 were armed?
2) If you armed 25,000 students, what if some of them got pissed on a night out, lost the plot and killed someone? Is that just "shit happens"? or could NOT HAVING A GUN possibly aid the situation?
3) What if some of these hypothetically armed 25,000 students got drunk/forgetful etc and lost their piece? Or had it nabbed off them by a local in the pub (sorry, baar)? That's an awol bit of kit there. Not a concern?
4) What if a student had a down patch, and instaed of seeking normal, civilised ways of dealing with it (going for a walk, speaking to a mate, doing a contact sport etc) he/she decided to turn towards the at-hand "problem solver" and turn their gun on themselves or others?
5) Even if all 25,000 students were armed and bowling about campus with their guns in their bags, would that necessarily mean that a would-be assailant could not surprise a group of students (in a room say) and tell them to put their hands up...any movement and BANG? Which would indicate that there are many scenarios where being armed would mean jack shit.
6) Where would such a hypothetical situ lead the cops? They would have to be trained in some very very extreme, civil war management training, to deal with potential situs where they have to deal with affray, breach of peace etc where ALL suspects or bystanders are armed. Would this lead to more paranoid policing and trigger happy cop decisions? as Fox News would say...YOU DECIDE!
7) How much would these guns cost, given that students are usually skint? And wouldn't students do what everyone at that age does? compare and try and compete on who's got the biggest and best "piece"?
8) Would arming 25,000 students mean that whenever a student perceives a crime is about to take place against them: petty theft, common assault, AOABH, mugging etc, they have a right to draw weapons? And if not, what rules of engagement would be taught? And would this encourage the small local criminal fraternity to "turn up the heat"?
9) Would there be a net loss in shootings and killings by arming 25,000 students? if not, and if it can be shown this would not occur statistically, then why do so many Americans remain convinced that arming the students was/is the answer?
10) Why are Americans generally so gun-loving and fucking stupid?
and a point 11 as an aside...The constitution of the US is wildly outdated and irrelevant to the modern world as to make it a parody and a farce. Something needs to be done to change it in order to stop this fucking "right to bear arms" bollocks that is the root cause for this disgraceful situation of rampant gun crime/abuse in the States.
Thank you for listening. Now, for Wogan on Radio 2....lalalalala.
