Virginia vs. Iraq

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

There is no debating Saddam was responsible for some 300,000 deaths. Yet something is done about it, and the situation is regarded as worse than before (I would use the term different rather than better or worse).

Heheh, different as in 650,000 civilian deaths since the U.S. occupation? Different as in the equivalent of the Virginia Tech deaths every few hours?

Maybe you're right about the incomprehensibility of large casualty numbers. But I remain convinced the Virginia Tech interest and coverage is all about nationalism. I think there would be plenty of coverage and interest if a few hundred thousand Americans had died in an incident or ongoing situation.

Perhaps a large portion of the population believes that there is something that they can do to prevent something like the VA Tech incident from happening again....

Heheh, what do you think the chances are of reinstating the assault weapons ban? If the Congress were to act today, it would be done. But the NRA and its puppets will stall for a few weeks, and Americans will forget all about this.


Like I said, Americans sicken me sometimes.



You're right, scaeagles ... we do have a shot at preventing something like this, vs. doing anything about Rwandaraq-type scenarios.


But we won't.



God save us.

[€uroMeinke]

I think you'll have to let humanity sicken you and not just Americans - My guess is you'll find those ratios play out with local biases, whatever the local bias. People are selfish and generally care only about themselves.

[scaeagles]

I suppose a differing point of view might say that should the professor who sacrificed himself (or any other number of people) have possessed a firearm he may have prevented many of the deaths by stopping the shooter.

[lizziebith]

Are you...uh...suggesting arming teachers? I mean, the guy might have had a gun at home. I don't know. But it sounds like you think teachers could (should?) bring guns to class to prevent death. Gosh...as generous as I feel these days to all viewpoints, that just sounds a tad like crazy talk. Sorry.

[blueerica]

I think he's just throwing it out there for opposition's sake - or at least that's what I got from the tone of that post.

Or not.

[Alex]

There are some for whom what scaeagles said seems painfully obvious and self evidence. There are others for whom it is equally obviously and self evidently bat**** insane.

But the two extremes that seem incontrovertable are:

1. If everybody on campus Monday was armed he would have killed many fewer than 32 people.

2. If absolutely nobody on campus Monday was armed he would have killed many few than 32 people.

The worst combination would seem to be 1 mass murderer with guns while nobody else has any.

So, from a strictly logistical perspective, it is easier to have more (non mass murderers) gun carriers about or to guarantee that no mass murderer has guns?

There's a certain logic to it. Me? I'd pass a constitutional amendment altering the 2nd amendment and then ban the manufacture of handguns beyond the needs of military and law enforcement and outlaw private ownership of handguns.

If that isn't going to happen (and it isn't likely) then maybe having more armed sane people makes sense (that's the normal response, in the form of police, to outbreaks of violence anyway).

[innerSpaceman]

Arming the citizenry to prevent violence will only lead to more deaths.

The lone mad gunman scenario is pretty rare. In most instances where someone is threatened with a gun ... someone else drawing will only result in gunfire where far more people get hurt or killed.


And in a society where we pay taxes for common protection, the solution to our protection should not be an armed populace. The onus should not be on us as individual citizens to protect life and limb with deadly force. Unless, of course, you're talking about taking 12 steps back from civilization.

[Alex]

The only way common protection could be guaranteed is if the government you hate put police in every location.


But like I said. For some the logic I laid out makes perfect sense, for others it is bat**** insane and never the twain shall meet.

It's kind of like the abortion issue. There'll never be agreement because there is fundamental disagreement on the underlying axioms.

[CoasterMatt]

All the gun control laws in the world wouldn't stop something like this from happening; but there is something that can help prevent this sort of thing, mental health resources.

This country has tons of money for research on keeping an old man's pecker hard, but they can't seem to find the coins to drop on helping people who might be getting lost along life's way.

[wendybeth]

Great post and point, Matt.